JC was born years before what is commonly thought

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

The central tendency in the historical facts of....

Zealotry, Religion and the Historical Aspect
notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=display&thread=25140

Revelations: Truths Revealed
notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=display&thread=20797

The Gospel of Thomas
notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=display&thread=21032

and of course...

Exodus: God Blessed America?
notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=display&thread=21263

... is that JC was born earlier than what is being presented currently. I'm sure some have heard, however, it looks like the Church is getting close to accepting this fact.

Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions
www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html

In "Jesus of Nazareth -- The Infancy Narratives," the pope says the Christian calendar is actually based on a blunder by a sixth century monk, who Benedict says was several years off in his calculation of Jesus' birth date.

The fact is that the truth is always brought to the light by ones that want to illuminate. The fact is that Herod is in Roman history and Biblical history and he wanted John the Baptists head on a plate, which he apparently received. Since John the Baptist baptized JC as young man and Herod apparently died in 4 BC it would mean that JC would have been much older around year 0 than is current thought.

The reason that JC's birth is important is because of the historical facts brought up in the threads above. The interesting part about all of this is that it's tied together by a building in Syria.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Mosque

After the Arab conquest of Damascus in 634, the mosque was built on the site of a Christian basilica dedicated to John the Baptist (Yahya). The mosque holds a shrine which today may still contain the head of John the Baptist, honored as a prophet by both Christians and Muslims alike, and is believed to be the place where Isa (Jesus) will return at the End of Days. The tomb of Saladin stands in a small garden adjoining the north wall of the mosque.

The American Renaissance Continues. God Blessed America!

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Good Sabbath all.

[ktunes]

Good Sabbath all

to you also...

in 4 BC it would mean that JC would have been much older around year 0 than is current thought

4 to 6 bc would be most likely...it should also be noted, He was not born on dec. 25th...the date was more likely in the fall during their holy day observances...

[Reckless Roselia]

Hello Ahamburger,

Have you considered contradictory evidence that Jesus Christ may not exist? It is there. With evidence as such, which is accurate and reliable I ask.

[Spellbound454]

I don't think there was a year 0

Jesus is thought to have died in 28/29 AD when he was in his thirties.
John the baptist died a couple of years after that.

The Herod referred to is Herod Antipas...Herod the Great's son.

[Reckless Roselia]

I don't think there was a year 0

lol!

The start of creation is year 0.

[Spellbound454]

Well I suppose so Roselia....

But whoever set out the Gregorian calendar hasn't figured in the 0....

There is one in the astrological calendar which was very important in those days.. but our calendar appears to have gone from BC1 to AD1

[Reckless Roselia]

Hi Spell,

I am assuming that year 0 is the year Christ was born then.

I know the Julian calendar preceded the Gregorian calendar. So which calendar will replace our current one in the distant future?

Actually it has caused a curiosity in me now as to finding which was the world's first calendar and was the year 0 mentioned in that.

[Spellbound454]

I am assuming that year 0 is the year Christ was born then

No... 4-6 BC

The Gregorian calendar has already been replaced by CE (common era) its not AD/BC anymore but CE/BCE
Just convenience really so that we can all trade globally without upsetting anyone....but its here to stay.
Countries with a different calendar usually use both so that there is a common theme on which to base transactions.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Nov 24, 2012 2:14:08 GMT -5 ktunes said:

Good Sabbath all

to you also...

in 4 BC it would mean that JC would have been much older around year 0 than is current thought

4 to 6 bc would be most likely...it should also be noted, He was not born on dec. 25th...the date was more likely in the fall during their holy day observances...

And a week later, lol... Another good one ktunes.(PS good old yule eh? )

I'm thinking it's more like 20-15 BC. I was in a rush before and didn't elaborate enough in my first post. The House of Herod is in both the bible and scientific history. Herod the Great died in 4 BC and as Spell has pointed out his son wanted JTB's head on a plate.

About the time Herod died(4 bc) Emperor Augusta went out to solidify his territory and apparently at that time came up with the foundation for the plan that he had been trying to force onto the Romans to make his empire.

By 6 AD there was revolts against the Roman empire for taxes, lead by people from Galilee. By this time Herod son's would have been ruling Judea province for over 10 years and would have been roughly 30 yrs old, well into the marriage cycle by this time.

This would mean that by 6 AD JTB would have to be at least roughly 35 yrs old as well. Since JC and JTB were apparently close in age, this would put JC at around 25 by 6 AD, at least. Which means that Emperor Augusta could have very well met a very young and charismatic Rabbi in Judea when he went to solidify his client staes in years 4 bc- 2 AD...

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Nov 24, 2012 3:48:39 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Hello Ahamburger,

Have you considered contradictory evidence that Jesus Christ may not exist? It is there. With evidence as such, which is accurate and reliable I ask.

Hey Roselia hope you have been keeping well.

Yes I have considered that. I would say this is more likely the case however...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[12][13][14][15][16][17] While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity[18][19][20][21] most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.[8][22][15]

Beyond that, the one thing that Christians, Islamics, and Jews agree on is that Christ was here. It's just a matter of what happened. Do you think that Moe would have put JC in the Quarn if he wasn't real?

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Just to summarize, since the links provided contain a couple thousand years of historical facts and lots of reading to fill in all those years. JC most likely created the service economy that we know so well today and helped implemented it a couple thousand years ago throughout the Roman empire. At that point he went about setting into motion events that would ensure that the meek will "inherit" the Earth. Love not war makes more, thanks JC.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 24, 2012 5:55:44 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

I don't think there was a year 0

lol!

The start of creation is year 0.

What she means is that the calendar switches from 1 BC (BCE) to 1 AD (CE). There is no 'year 0'.

[Reckless Roselia]

Hey Roselia hope you have been keeping well.

Yes I have considered that. I would say this is more likely the case however...

Hi Aham,

I've been keeping well, hope you too.

I know there is lack of evidence of Jesus existing due to few reasons yet I strongly believe in his existence. I am a believer even if semi.

Beyond that, the one thing that Christians, Islamics, and Jews agree on is that Christ was here. It's just a matter of what happened. Do you think that Moe would have put JC in the Quarn if he wasn't real?

Some think Muhammad plagiarized the Bible and other texts before him.

[Reckless Roselia]

Dec 8, 2012 2:28:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 24, 2012 5:55:44 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

lol!

The start of creation is year 0.

What she means is that the calendar switches from 1 BC (BCE) to 1 AD (CE). There is no 'year 0'.

It's like saying there is no zero on the number scale and that we have 1 from minus 1 as we move up and along the number ladder.

I'm sure there will be year 0 somewhere and it can be when the Universe was created.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2012 8:50:45 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Dec 8, 2012 2:28:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What she means is that the calendar switches from 1 BC (BCE) to 1 AD (CE). There is no 'year 0'.

It's like saying there is no zero on the number scale and that we have 1 from minus 1 as we move up and along the number ladder.

I'm sure there will be year 0 somewhere and it can be when the Universe was created.

If you're talking about a zero time coordinate on some arbitrary scale, then yes. The zero would have to be accompanied by a set of coordinates, since the time also depends on position and a velocity frame of reference (per relativity).

The point is that on the Gregorian calendar, the years are enumerated 5 BC, 4 BC, 3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD, 2 AD, 3 AD...

There is no '0 AD' on this calendar, or on the Julian calendar that preceded it. No modern system of dating assigns a particular year the label '0 AD' (or '0 CE', if you prefer).

[trevorw2539]

Briefly

Just as a matter of interest Herod the Great had 4 sons recorded in the Bible, and 2 Grandsons. These all ruled parts of Herod the Greats former territory. He had others sons who didn't.
The sons who ruled were Antipas, Archelaus, Philipp 1 and Philipp 2. None of them were actually entitled to the title 'Herod'.
Archelaus was more cruel than his father. Antipas was, as Jesus said 'a sly old fox', while both Philipps were reasonable leaders.
Antipas lied to Rome about his brother who had misruled in Judea. Rome removed Archelaus to Gaul, and ruled Judea directly. Antipas, as someone has said, removed John the Baptists head at his step daughters request. As instructed by her mother, Herodias.
Herodias divorced Philipp 1 to marry Antipas. This was her 3rd marriage, her daughter being from her first marriage in Rome.
Agrippas 1 & 2 we find in the books of Acts. They were Herods.

Quirinius who was 'governor' of Syria was given the task of disposing of Archelaus monies and accounting for taxes in Judea.

By the way, we do not have the name for the daughter of Herodias. 'Salome' was probably a name popular in the family but not recorded for us.

[mrsdutt]

Dec 8, 2012 8:47:47 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Hey Roselia hope you have been keeping well.

Yes I have considered that. I would say this is more likely the case however...

Hi Aham,

I've been keeping well, hope you too.

I know there is lack of evidence of Jesus existing due to few reasons yet I strongly believe in his existence. I am a believer even if semi.

Beyond that, the one thing that Christians, Islamics, and Jews agree on is that Christ was here. It's just a matter of what happened. Do you think that Moe would have put JC in the Quarn if he wasn't real?

Some think Muhammad plagiarized the Bible and other texts before him.

I would be interested in knowing what you mean by lack of evidence. Are you able to jot down a specific note?

[trevorw2539]

Dec 15, 2012 9:49:06 GMT -5 mrsdutt said:

Dec 8, 2012 8:47:47 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Hi Aham,

I've been keeping well, hope you too.

I know there is lack of evidence of Jesus existing due to few reasons yet I strongly believe in his existence. I am a believer even if semi.



Some think Muhammad plagiarized the Bible and other texts before him.

I would be interested in knowing what you mean by lack of evidence. Are you able to jot down a specific note?

If I may just post in answer to your 'I would be interested....'.

There is a difference between the Historic Jesus and th Historicity of Jesus.

Most scholars now accept that Jesus existed. What they don't agree on is the history surrounding him. What he was, what he really taught, what the Gospels actually record about Jesus' acts, miracles etc. Truth? What the disciples thought he was saying? Or imagination, exaggeration.

And of course Mohammed plagiarised the Torah, Oral Torah and the New Testament. And in doing so made similar claims that the Torah made. In claiming some of the stories recorded in the OT which are obviously apocryphal and putting them in the 'True Book' - the Qu'ran - proves that the 'Truth' he claims for the Qu'ran of 'divine' knowledge is doubtful, as with the OT.

[Reckless Roselia]

Hello Idin,

Long time no see. I trust you're well.

I would be interested in knowing what you mean by lack of evidence. Are you able to jot down a specific note?

Historical evidence? There is no historian to my knowledge that has a record of Christ's existence.

[mrsdutt]

Dec 15, 2012 12:21:09 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Hello Idin,

Long time no see. I trust you're well.

I would be interested in knowing what you mean by lack of evidence. Are you able to jot down a specific note?

Historical evidence? There is no historian to my knowledge that has a record of Christ's existence.

Then that remark would beg the question, "Who(m) do you consider a historian?" Can the apostles be considered one? They walked the earth with Him. Or would it be only someone who was alive after Christ died and studied Him? Would you consider Moses a historian because it was his job to record history in the making?
Also by evidence do you mean only the written word? Is not the Shroud of Turin physical evidence?

I think the most difficult thing to believe in is God in this time in history. We think we are so knowledgeable, and yet we know very little. We need proof of everything. To me, with all due respect, it's a very sad state of being. But, God does not ever force Himself on anyone. Choosing Him must be a free choice.

Hope all is well with you, ROSE!

[Reckless Roselia]

I'm fine, Idin. Just busy with teaching and looking forward to the Christmas break. ;D

With who(m) I consider to be a historian then yes, you're correct in saying it could be 'anyone' that has studied and/or recorded history. In my personal opinion the historian would have to be a Jew and preferably a non-Christian. S/he also has to be living around the time Jesus was. The source has to be reliable and accurate.

Somehow I would consider the Shroud of Turin as a physical evidence but then again it can be anyone's shroud and the bloodstains and the DNA found may or may not be of Jesus. Do we know how Jesus looks like?

The Bible to some is evidence of the existence Christ but many skeptics would disagree with that. Hence why I used the word lack of evidence.

Personally I do believe in a man called Jesus. It's part of my faith.

[trevorw2539]

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book
18, ch. 3, par. 3. (disputed)
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9. (not disputed)
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

Mara Bar-Serapion wrote the following
What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down[5]

The execution of 'their wise king' can only refer to Jesus. They had had no other king since the Romans took over and as far as we know no Hasmonean 'kings' were ever executed. Neither had any High Priest. Jesus had been called King of the Jews by Herod at his crucifixion.

There are one or two more obscure references.

[trevorw2539]

Dec 15, 2012 13:27:01 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

I'm fine, Idin. Just busy with teaching and looking forward to the Christmas break. ;D

With who(m) I consider to be a historian then yes, you're correct in saying it could be 'anyone' that has studied and/or recorded history. In my personal opinion the historian would have to be a Jew and preferably a non-Christian. S/he also has to be living around the time Jesus was. The source has to be reliable and accurate.

Somehow I would consider the Shroud of Turin as a physical evidence but then again it can be anyone's shroud and the bloodstains and the DNA found may or may not be of Jesus. Do we know how Jesus looks like?

The Bible to some is evidence of the existence Christ but many skeptics would disagree with that. Hence why I used the word lack of evidence.

Personally I do believe in a man called Jesus. It's part of my faith.

Surely we need to get things into perspective. We live in a day of educated masses, postal services, daily papers and instant news. A star is born overnight.

Not so in Jesus day. The masses were not educated, there was no news service etc. Writing was done by scribes. Most of whom were probably religious scribes.
Jesus was not a national figure, he was a wandering preacher. He was of no concern to the Jews until he began criticise their ways and teachings. Particularly when they refused to follow them themselves.
We always think of Jesus packing 3 years into a few chapters of scripture. In reality we know little of how he spent most of his time. What we do 'know' is written many years after his death. It's unlikely that his disciples carried parchment and quills etc to keep a
diary as they moved about.

We have 4 gospels written by mainly unknown writers, for 4 sets of different people, so emphasising 4 different aspects of Jesus ministry.

Nothing unusual about that. Even in the Bible we have different views of David's life. One emphasising his personal life, the other his 'Military' side.

Which view you take from the distance of time is your choice.

People saw Jesus from different points of view. 'Who do you say I am'. 'Who do people say I am'.

In truth there is no physical evidence for Jesus.

My personal view is that there is sufficient indication that 'Jesus' existed.

[Reckless Roselia]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for the insightful posts.

In truth there is no physical evidence for Jesus.

I can understand why but there should be a historian of my description or of similar position recording his life's events. I understand that Muhammad does have non-Muslim historians around the 7th century recording his life's events.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9. (not disputed)

Brother of Jesus? A sibling?

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44

"Christus" is the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah" not ''Jesus''.

Here's another take:

11th century monk corrects Tacitus: "Goodies" to read "Christians"!



www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

Like I've mentioned that evidence is pointing in both directions. It's how you wish to perceive Jesus and his existence.

[trevorw2539]

Dec 16, 2012 3:36:20 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for the insightful posts.

In truth there is no physical evidence for Jesus.

I can understand why but there should be a historian of my description or of similar position recording his life's events. I understand that Muhammad does have non-Muslim historians around the 7th century recording his life's events.



Brother of Jesus? A sibling?

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44

"Christus" is the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah" not ''Jesus''.

Here's another take:

11th century monk corrects Tacitus: "Goodies" to read "Christians"!



www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

Like I've mentioned that evidence is pointing in both directions. It's how you wish to perceive Jesus and his existence.

I offer these thoughts, not to disagree with you or to argue. Just as my own 'thoughts'.


It is always difficult to establish right and wrong at a distance of 2000 years, a difference in languages and thought of the day.

IE

Christians and Chrestians
Detail of the 11th century copy of Annals, the gap between the 'i' and 's' is highlighted in the word 'Christianos'.

The passage states:

"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ...."

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown. It is impossible today to say who altered the letter e into an i. In Suetonius’ Nero 16.2, "christiani", however, seems to be the original reading".[16] Since the alteration became known it has given rise to debates among scholars as to whether Tacitus deliberately used the term Chrestians, or if a scribe made an error during the Middle Ages.[17][18] It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians.[19] Robert Van Voorst claims that many sources indicate that the term Chrestians was also used among the early followers of Jesus by the second century.[18][20] The term Christians appears only three times in the New Testament, the first usage (Acts 11:26) giving the origin of the term.[18] In all three cases the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus in Greek reads Chrestianoi.[18][20] In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".[20]

Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large.[18] Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe.[21][22] Van Voorst has stated that it was unlikely for Tacitus himself to refer to Christians as Chrestianos i.e. "useful ones" given that he also referred to them as "hated for their shameful acts".[17] Paul Eddy sees no major impact on the authenticity of the passage or its meaning regardless of the use of either term by Tacitus.[23]


Just another 'interpretation'.



As to Historians of Jesus day. Jesus was not a famous man, as I have already said. For 3 years he wandered about preaching and reached an 'ignominious end'.(Humanly speaking) In those terms what was there to record?
Records are there of men who had raised an 'army' and fought the Romans. They were 'heroes'. But Jesus? In truth he had little immediate effect. He changed no laws, he did not oppose the Romans enough to attract their attention, he did not promise to defeat Jewish enemies. In fact he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem.
According to the Gospels he was loved by the ordinary people and became hated by the Jewish authorities, those who 'controlled' their Jewish history. Those who controlled the scribes.

I'm just musing

[Reckless Roselia]

Trevor, I'm wondering if there was any physical evidence of Jesus in the Great Library of Alexandria (that had been mysteriously destroyed).

[trevorw2539]

Would they have considered Jesus an important enough figure, or the early Gospels worthy of saving. Later writings would be too late.
The Septuagint translation of the Torah from Hebrew to Koine Greek would have been, as Judaism was an important religion.
The real problem is when the 'Library' was actually destroyed. 4 different dates are given. The first one being before Christ was born.
Alexandria also had at least 2 more Libraries. One in the Serapeum Temple and one in the Cesarion Temple. The Great library was the Royal library for rulers etc and genuine researchers etc. The others were for the public.
Many reports, to my mind, of the destruction of the Great Library are of partial destruction, destruction of other Libraries, removal of books to others places etc. There is confusion as with much early history, and the mindset of the different rulers of Rome.
I very much doubt that any evidence of Jesus would be in the Great Library.


By the way someone mentioned Jesus having a brother, a sibling. Joseph and Mary certainly would have had other children. The bible says that Joseph 'new not his wife until the child was borne'. The doctrine of perpetual virginity is a load of nonsense. It is not Biblical.
Whether you consider these as brothers and sisters to Jesus, or half brothers is up to you.
Look at the example of Jacob who had 12 sons by 2 wives and 2 servants of the wives. They were all classed as brothers in one family. They all received a share, as appropriate, of their fathers estate. Most became tribe founders in the Promised land. I say 'most' for a reason. That's another subject. But tribe leaders were all the same family - Jacob's.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

My hats off to ya trevor, you’re one solid guy.

I agree with you, there is so much surrounding evidence of JC’s life that it’s basically impossible for the guy not to have been here.

Dec 15, 2012 12:21:09 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Historical evidence? There is no historian to my knowledge that has a record of Christ's existence.

Not to cut into the conversation here, however, this is exactly what I’m saying Roselia. (Sorry for the late response things have been insane around here, hope you are still well ).

There hasn't been a proper historical account of JC’s life because his life has been “shifted”. How did they accomplish this? You already said it, they burnt down the Library in Alexander. This book by the Pope is just the start of the next chapter of JC’s life.

Since I love history and it’s all I basically read, aside from current events. I can honestly say that I guarantee you that the books are going to look similar to what is compiled in the threads in the first post.

Some think Muhammad plagiarized the Bible and other texts before him.

Did Moe plagiarize the New Testament? Not exactly, what he did was write his own version of how Christ wanted things to play out according what was passed on in the Gospel of Thomas, and then added the Torah.

That’s why there is the Gospel of Jesus in the Koran, and that is why Moe is a false profit. He wanted to set the record “straight” (aka as he seen it) about JC’s life and tell people how to live according to how he wanted things to be. In doing all this he made himself the center of attention for the path to God, not Jesus (Who Moe also believed to be the messiah).

[trevorw2539]

Dec 16, 2012 22:18:07 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

My hats off to ya trevor, you’re one solid guy.

I agree with you, there is so much surrounding evidence of JC’s life that it’s basically impossible for the guy not to have been here.

Dec 15, 2012 12:21:09 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Historical evidence? There is no historian to my knowledge that has a record of Christ's existence.

Not to cut into the conversation here, however, this is exactly what I’m saying Roselia. (Sorry for the late response things have been insane around here, hope you are still well ).

There hasn't been a proper historical account of JC’s life because his life has been “shifted”. How did they accomplish this? You already said it, they burnt down the Library in Alexander. This book by the Pope is just the start of the next chapter of JC’s life.

Since I love history and it’s all I basically read, aside from current events. I can honestly say that I guarantee you that the books are going to look similar to what is compiled in the threads in the first post.

Some think Muhammad plagiarized the Bible and other texts before him.

Did Moe plagiarize the New Testament? Not exactly, what he did was write his own version of how Christ wanted things to play out according what was passed on in the Gospel of Thomas, and then added the Torah.

That’s why there is the Gospel of Jesus in the Koran, and that is why Moe is a false profit. He wanted to set the record “straight” (aka as he seen it) about JC’s life and tell people how to live according to how he wanted things to be. In doing all this he made himself the center of attention for the path to God, not Jesus (Who Moe also believed to be the messiah).

Hi Ahamburger.

I do not believe there was anything in the Library of Alexandria about Jesus. He was an 'itinerant' preacher. Of the ordinary people he met, loved. Of the Jewish religious heirarchy he opposed, hated. Of the Roman rulers no consequence, as he presented no threat to them.
Although Christianity accepts his resurrection, he died an ignominious death as far as the Romans were concerned, like other Jewish rebels. As far as I am aware they are recorded in Roman records. Not Jesus.

Given the various dates and confusion about The Royal Library and other libraries in Alexandria we shall never know the truth about the complete destruction. IF Julius Caesar did accidentally burn it down it was long before Jesus was born. This would mean the Serapeum and Cesarion Libraries would come into their own until the Serapeum was damaged and many of its contents depleted by Aurelion.
The Serapeum was destroyed by Patriarch Thepohilus as it was a pagan Temple.

As I said there is a lot of different writings by early historians, etc. We don't know at this distance of time how accurate their information was, and whether it was first of second hand.

The Arab tradition is that Omar destroyed it 600+ AD. However this is 'knowledge' from reports in the early second millenium, so is very doubtful.

Whew. And I don't like history.

Book by the Pope.

To say that the Pope is biased is an understatement.

If I find anything farcical it is the thought of a Pope writing the next part of the story of Jesus. The Roman Catholic church has taken the teachings of Christ and made a mockery of them. Enough said. I don't want to hurt too many people.
Having said that there are many sincere Catholics who practise what they are taught. The responsibility for their understanding lies with others.

I personally shall not be reading a work of fiction.


Mohammed and plagiarism.

This really is down to beliefs. Islam believes that the Qu'ran is divinely given. Under those circumstances did 'God' plagiarise his own earlier Torah. Both have the basic teaching God is One God.
It was 'revealed' to Mohammed that God was happy with the Torah and NT but the Qu'ran was to be prime.
If God was happy with the Torah, if he was happy with what he had done, why change the stories of the Torah. Why new 'doctrines'.

Another thing. We know that Islam believes the Qu'ran is the inspired true word, the Jews do so the Torah, and Christians the Bible.
Now given that you would think that God would have got things right.
We know that certain things which are given cannot be true. In Noah's time the world could not have flooded as recorded and there be a mountain left for the Ark to rest on. Physically impossible. That Adam and Eve were the first persons on earth. Impossible. There are other things which are myths and stories from older times. Would God inspire people to believe impossible things and myths and legends. So Mohammed, in taking these things into account as true, surely speaks volumes.

All 'Divine' revelations must be suspect. I do not doubt that there are people who have certain abilities to 'know' things, have premonitions etc which have come true. And I don't mean retrospective premonitions - those things we say after the event 'I knew that was going to happen'.
I know from my own life these things happen. But 'divine' revelations are often the result of deprivation of various things, and distortion of thought.

I don't accept that either the Bible or the Qu'ran are 'divinely' inspired. Therefore I believe that Mohammed plagiarised. However, sitting in a cave for days can play tricks on the mind.

John Bunyan, while alone in Bedford Jail, wrote the amazing 'Pilgrims Progress'. Was it his solitude that allowed his mind to wander and compose this book. Had he been outside, occupied with other things, would we have scenes recorded in the book.




Wow. Now I am going to get it in the neck. From Muslims and Christians. Just hope there are no Jews on here too.