Quote from jzlucas:
Why would it take 5 to 9 decades for someone to mention or write about some saviour raising people from the dead, walking on water, etc?
I guess that explains all the contradictions concerning the resurrection as well. Happy Easter.
Here is an essay regarding the subject. I posted it before but the link is lost. That's about par for the course relative to what's happened.
Quote from acronym:
Brilliant.
Soooo, why arent you writing in aramaic now?
Dont tell me,you'll have a reason and i dont much care, but the linguistic aspect is overlooked imo.
By the way,
Christ is from the Greek psychological term that can apply to anyone, not just to me exclusively. Everyone, including you, will eventually attain the same level of accomplishment as myself.
The first Gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas, were originally written in Aramaic. Don't you find it strange that not one complete original copy of my own words survived the rise of Christianity? Do you really think that could have been an accident?
In many cases, Gospels were destroyed by the church never to be read again. The Gospel of Thomas was
almost one of these.
When Constantine made "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire, it meant that by law, any other religious or spiritual ideas were outlawed. So if your beliefs were not part of the rapidly developing doctrines of the new church, then you were an overnight heretic - which was a crime punishable by death.
It was as thought your Congress suddenly passed a law saying all religious beliefs that are not exactly in line with the Christian Coalition are banned, and any disagreement by you is a crime equal to murder.
As a politician, Constantine realized "Christianity" was
already becoming the most popular religion in the Roman Empire, and he simply made the most of it for himself. He didn't do much of anything that was not calculated to increase his own power.
Sound familiar?
Getting back to my story...What passes for history is all
revised history. Whether it's religious, natural, or political history, it is a story written by whoever wins the war.
The novels that became the Gospels were written some twenty to sixty years after the letters of Paul, even though his letters appear later in the Bible. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke were all copied from earlier sources. Matthew and Luke copied from one common source, as well as the Gospel of Mark.
Even though Mark was written before the other mainstream Gospels, it was second in the Bible because the politicos wanted to start with a genealogy that traced back to King David in order to fulfill a prophecy about a virgin birth...even though such birth would nullify the genealogy anyway. All the old, original scripture said about my birth is that "a young woman will give birth to him", meaning the Messiah.
Practically all of the Christian religion was borrowed from earlier stories, including, but not limited to, some of the old copper Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essenes. Those coppers did not survive.
Copying something does not make it true. And the fact that something wasn't copied very much doesn't make it false. Scholarship that gives credibility to stories and sayings based on how many different sources they are found in can be erroneous - especially if the original source for the copying was incorrect in the first place
or that original source was changed by the copier and then lost or destroyed.
A group of Biblical scholars has come to the conclusion that I probably only said about 20% of the things the New Testament quotes me as saying. Actually, it's less than that. And some of the things they think I said and didn't say, they've got wrong.
Overall, Biblical scholarship is a flawed science.
continued...
