Login | Register

Post Reply 
Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
02-16-2017, 12:07 PM
Post: #16
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
(02-16-2017 06:39 AM)Rako Wrote:  Here are some more pagan writers, albeit weaker evidence:

Pliny the Elder 23-79 AD (remarks about the tetrarchy of the Nazareans)
Phlegon (on the eclipse http://www.textexcavation.com/testimonia.html)
Thallus (on the eclipse http://www.textexcavation.com/thallustestimonium.html)
Seneca on Anger http://www.textexcavation.com/seneca.html

Pliny the Elder mentions the Nazerini who existed sometime from 30 to 20 BC and south of Antioch. Obviously there is no connection to Jesus of Nazareth (incidentally the town of Nazareth didn't even exist until the late first century AD).

Phlegon was a second century writer. We don't have an extant copy of his Chronicles, but it's quoted in the third century by Origen. There's no way for us to know if this is an accurate quote or what Phlegon's source was even if it is accurate.

Thallus mentions an eclipse of uncertain date, but nothing about Jesus. To make things worse, Passover begins on a full moon. You can't have a full moon and a solar eclipse at the same time. Supposedly Jesus was killed on Passover which means the darkness that accompanied his crucifixion could not be due to a solar eclipse.

In the correspondence between Seneca and Paul (assuming it's not an outright forgery) mentions Jesus once and it's Paul who mentions him. Even your link says that the letters are spurious. Paul, incidentally, is the earliest NT author and never met Jesus. His knowledge of Jesus came from divine revelation.

The mention of Jesus by Josephus is a known forgery.

Tacitus mentions Jesus in a document from the early 2nd century, but we have no idea the source of his knowledge. For all we know everything he knows about Jesus came from Christians.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2017, 12:36 PM
Post: #17
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
(02-16-2017 11:14 AM)Count Iblis Wrote:  
(02-16-2017 06:46 AM)Rako Wrote:  
Quote:Estimated Range of Dating: 115-115 A.D.
In The Life of Claudius 25.4, we find the statement, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Suetonius also makes mention of Nero's persecution in 16.2: "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html

Based on over the top atheist skeptic logic, since Suetonius was writing 50+ years after Chrestus, Rome's fire and Nero's persecution of Christians, and in fact Suetonius doesn't even mention Rome's fire, it must mean that none of those underlined persons or events existed.

What is the basis for assuming that Chrestus=Jesus Christ?
1. Reasonably: English "Christ" = Grecized "Chrēstos" = Latinized "Chrestus" = Latinized form for Anointed/Chrismated One / Messiah

2. Who is this "Chrestus"? It must be someone well known by Suetonius' time for him not to supply more information. In Suetonius' time, the "Christians" were already an established sect.

3. What kind of "Chrestus" is going to stir up the Jews? Messiah would be a well known figure. What Messianic contenders were there in Claudius' rule?

4. It's said ""As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."", ok, so we know what Rome did to the Jews, but what does Suetonius say happened to the main culprit, Chrestus? He just leaves that quiet. Why? Because there wasn't anything to do? How could that be? He must not have been available. And why wouldn't he have been available to get penalized? Jesus was not available to get penalized.

5. We already know that Nero was persecuting Christians and blaming them for Rome's fire. The blaming of Christians would fit into that in Suetonius' context.


Quote:The passage pretty clearly indicates that Chrestus was in Rome at the time agitating Jews.

I think that you are smart enough to see that Chrestus' location is not clearly specified in the text (""As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them[ie. the Jews] from Rome.""). If Chrestus is instigating the Jews, he is not just going to get exiled. The writer does not say "them both", but "them". So why would you say it's "pretty clear", when you should be smart enough to see it's not "pretty clear"?


Quote:The name is wrong, the time period is wrong, and the geographical location is wrong.
Christians like Stephen in Acts were blamed for speaking against the Jewish people and the Law. They were claimed to have been doing this due to Jesus' teachings, and Jesus was said repeatedly to have preached the destruction of the Temple. The fact that Jesus was already killed at that point doesn't contradict the fact that the Jews blamed Jesus for the Christians' teachings.



Quote:Suetonius mentions Christians so at best we can deduce from this is that there were Christians at the time. The existence of Thor worshipers doesn't prove that Thor existed, does it?
I think you are smart enough to see that this is an apples to oranges comparison.
Thor worshipers did not leave records claiming that Thor was a real person, albeit in the eyes of the official "Thor cult" a man-god, who lived within 10 years of the records (eg. Paul writing about Jesus living less than 10 years before Paul's epistles.)

If Christians were a sect claiming Jesus was a totally non-human god who was born at the latest c. 4000 years previously and who was still directly responsible for all the world's thunder and lightening, you could have a point.

Since I think you should be smart enough to realize the big logic problems with the analogy you are drawing, then it raises the question of what your real motive is for drawing such bad analogies to say that Jesus Nazarene was wholly mythical?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2017, 12:42 PM
Post: #18
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
It seems that what changed your mind is that you were trying to convince atheists Jesus at least existed, and then failing that, you decided there wasn't enough evidence yourself. Big problem there is really finding atheists to be reliable measurements of reality on that question.

It's kind of like arguing with lincoln biographers about whether there was an internal conspiracy involved in the assassination. The biographers have studied the documents well and usually concluded that the official version is correct. Does that mean that they are right?

With atheists, you are using an even weaker measurement. They can't even accept that a Supreme Being exists when the point is at least debateable, so why should they accept His alleged Son, Jesus of Nazareth , exists?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2017, 01:04 PM
Post: #19
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
So far there has been no Ehrman v. Carrier debate on Jesus' existence, but it would be like the story in the opening of Master and Margarita.

Ehrman has his own version of what Jesus was, a non-divine teacher who did not even put himself out to be divine. Carrier is like Berlioz in the movie, saying that Jesus entirely did not exist, because some parts of Jesus' story can be found in other religions, like the idea of a dying and resurrecting deity.





Quote:I don't think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. .... I think there was a historical person Jesus , but after his death, so many people told stories, that different portrtaits emerged. ... What core evidence is there that Caesar existed? It's a historical point. How do you establish existence in the past. One has to look at historical evidence. If you say historical evidence doesn't count, then why not deny the Holocaust or deny Abraham Lincon lived. I think it matters what happened in history. We don't have anyone from that time (of Caesar) living now to tell us he existed. We have more evidence for Jesus than we do for anyone from his time period. Paul makes off the cuff comments where he is not interested in making a point, he says things about James the brother of the Lord. There is no doubt about Paul writing Galatians. How do you know Cicero wrote his letters. I am a historian. I know thousands of scholars of the ancient world and I don't know any who deny Paul wrote Galatians.

Bart Ehrman
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2017, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 02-16-2017 01:18 PM by Rako.)
Post: #20
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
Ehrman's "Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier"

1. Carrier misunderstood Ehrman as making an "error of fact" about a statue of Peter.
Quote:The bulk of Carrier’s harsh critique involves a set of “Errors of Fact” – including one that I have already dealt with in an earlier post, whether a bronze Priapus that is allegedly in the Vatican (but not actually, as one of the posts on this blog shows) was of Peter. I stated it was not, and Carrier agrees. He mistakenly thought I was arguing that no such statue existed, but that was not my intention or concern. I can see how my wording could be (mis)read that way, however.
https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

2. Carrier points to writers from 50 years ago to say that Tacitus' reference on Jesus was just an interpolation, but that POV has fallen by the wayside
Quote:At one point in my book I indicate that “I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” that the reference to Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery (p. 55). Carrier says this is “crap,” “sloppy work,” and “irresponsible,” and indicates that if I had simply checked into the matter, I would see that I’m completely wrong. As evidence he cites Herbert W. Benario, “Recent Work on Tacitus (1964-68) The Classical World 63.8 (April 1970) pp. 253-66, where several scholars allegedly indicate that the passage is forged.
In my defense, I need to stress that my comment had to do with what scholars today are saying about the Tacitus quotation. What I say in the book is that I don’t know of any scholars who think that it is an interpolation, and I don’t. I don’t know if Carrier knows of any or not; the ones he is referring to were writing fifty years ago, and so far as I know, they have no followers among trained experts today.
https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier

3. Carrier says Osiris is an example of a dying and rising god, but Ehrman points out that in the story of Osiris Carrier points to, Osiris' body stays dead, unlike Jesus':
Quote: In this telling of the myth – the one the Carrier refers to – Osiris’s body does not come back to life. Quite the contrary, it remains a corpse. There are debates, in fact, over where it is buried, and different locales want to claim the honor of housing it. It is true that Osiris “comes back” to earth to work with his son Horus: ἔπειτα τῷ Ὥρῳ τὸν Ὄσιριν ἐξ Ἅιδου παραγενόμενον. Literally, he came “from Hades.” But this is not a resurrection of his body. His body is still dead. He himself is down in Hades, and can come back up to make an appearance on earth on occasion. This is not like Jesus coming back from the dead, in his body; it is like Samuel in the story of the Witch of Endor, where King Saul brings his shade back to the world of the living temporarily (1 Samuel 28). How do we know Osiris is not raised physically? His body is still a corpse, in a tomb.
Evidence to that comes from various places in the treatise. For example, section 20, 359 E

not the least important suggestion is the opinion held regarding the shrines of Osiris, whose body is said to have been laid in many different places.
https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Ehrman continues in that vein in his writing about Carrier's criticisms of him.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2017, 01:41 PM
Post: #21
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
(02-16-2017 12:07 PM)Count Iblis Wrote:  
(02-16-2017 06:39 AM)Rako Wrote:  Here are some more pagan writers, albeit weaker evidence:

Pliny the Elder 23-79 AD (remarks about the tetrarchy of the Nazareans)
Phlegon (on the eclipse http://www.textexcavation.com/testimonia.html)
Thallus (on the eclipse http://www.textexcavation.com/thallustestimonium.html)
Seneca on Anger http://www.textexcavation.com/seneca.html

Pliny the Elder mentions the Nazerini who existed sometime from 30 to 20 BC and south of Antioch. Obviously there is no connection to Jesus of Nazareth (incidentally the town of Nazareth didn't even exist until the late first century AD).
The connection would be that it shows a "Nazarini" community living south of the major city of Antioch. And Nazareth and Jesus' city could have been related to this Nazarene community.
I think you don't actually have any direct evidence to say that Nazareth didn't exist in the early-mid 1st c.
It's like saying that if we don't have records of Indians living in the area of NYC before the Europeans arrived, the area must have been uninhabitated in the century before the arrival.

I think you are a smart person, so why would you be making these kinds of strange claims?

Quote:Phlegon was a second century writer. We don't have an extant copy of his Chronicles, but it's quoted in the third century by Origen. There's no way for us to know if this is an accurate quote or what Phlegon's source was even if it is accurate.
It doesn't stop it from being evidence from a secular source, just because you think it might not be accurate.

It's like you are making a wholly arbitrary call. Origen "could" have misquoted Phlegon, therefore we don't have zero evidence Phlegon had an accurate basis, therefore, we have zero evidence for Phlegon's claim after all.

Analogy: I run up and tell you your house is on fire and then run away. You calmly remain at your hotel, thinking that you remain with zero evidence your house is on fire, as I failed to provide you with a way to double check my claim.

I think you are smart enough to realize why this still counts as "evidence" that is significant.

Quote:Thallus mentions an eclipse of uncertain date, but nothing about Jesus. To make things worse, Passover begins on a full moon. You can't have a full moon and a solar eclipse at the same time. Supposedly Jesus was killed on Passover which means the darkness that accompanied his crucifixion could not be due to a solar eclipse.
So maybe the eclipse was not a solar eclipse but of another form. All that needs to happen is for there to be nightlike darkness during the day.

Quote:In the correspondence between Seneca and Paul (assuming it's not an outright forgery) mentions Jesus once and it's Paul who mentions him. Even your link says that the letters are spurious. Paul, incidentally, is the earliest NT author and never met Jesus. His knowledge of Jesus came from divine revelation.
Seneca's letter also talks about a foreign leader who was crucified, and that letter is not the one considered likely spurious.

Quote:The mention of Jesus by Josephus is a known forgery.
As a smart person, I think you are aware that there is no scholarly consensus that the passage is "known" to be wholly fraudulent.

Quote:Tacitus mentions Jesus in a document from the early 2nd century, but we have no idea the source of his knowledge. For all we know everything he knows about Jesus came from Christians.
So it means now you are pushing the goalposts more once I showed nonChristian writings from the era. If Tacitus was writing in 33 AD, you could make the same claim, maybe it was just one of his Christian friends.
Except.... Tacitus was writing an official history and Christians were still illegal and he bashed Christians in his work. It's unlikely then he was getting his information from any Christian friends.

Same issue with Phlegon: We don't have a way to doublecheck Tacitus' claim, therefore somehow in your view Tacitus' information could be wrong and doesn't count as evidence.

Same thing with a lot of other ancient figures. The Buddha supposedly made supernatural miracles and achieved enlightenment and the records of him are from even longer after his time than Jesus, therefore we have no way to check where the stories came from, so we somehow have zero evidence Siddhārtha Gautama even eixsted.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2017, 11:17 PM
Post: #22
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
Rako, how does a dead man instigate something?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2017, 06:46 AM
Post: #23
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
(02-16-2017 11:17 PM)Count Iblis Wrote:  Rako, how does a dead man instigate something?

1. The man instigates dissension against an empire, then the man is killed, then the disturbances he promoted are spread by his followers on his instructions.

Quote:Back in the 1990s when the last moral panic centered on care homes, this led in turn to a massive explosion in prosecutions. The current moral panic has been instigated by a deceased celebrity and it should surprise none therefore that a whole host of celebrities have been targeted by those who push this agenda.
http://thejusticegap.com/2014/02/winners/
In what way does the writer think a deceased celebrity was instigating panic?

2. The apostles claimed that Christ was still with them because he resurrected, and they claimed visitations.

Matthew 28:20 "And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age."
There are numerous stories about apostles seeing Jesus even after the Ascension (eg. John in Revelation and Stephen and Paul in Acts), most of them found in writings outside the Bible.
Suetonius could have theorized Christ was alive, thinking Christ avoided or resuscitated after the crucifixion. Or he could have chosen not to go into detail about Christ's resurrection and left it at saying Christ was promoting the disturbances.

Jews are not going to have make a rebellion for a nonJewish Greek or Latin named "Chrestus". Chrestus is going to be a translation from Aramaic/Hebrew and also a term well known to Suetonius. And in their language, Chrestus/Christos /Christ is "Messiah".

We already know Nero blamed the fire on Jewish Christians, followers of Christos in Greek, Chrestus in Latin. It's no surprise Claudius would do the same, since they were an illegal group. Who else was the Messianic contender of 50 AD named Christ/Chrestus stirring up Jews in Rome in the eyes of Romans?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2017, 01:16 AM
Post: #24
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
Nazareth didn't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2017, 04:37 AM (This post was last modified: 02-18-2017 04:45 AM by Rako.)
Post: #25
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
(02-18-2017 01:16 AM)Count Iblis Wrote:  Nazareth didn't exist.

Now I realize why perhaps in Bulgakov's Master and Margarita when Pilate asks Jesus where he is from, Jesus says he comes from Gamala. The author is dealing with the hardcore skeptic version of Jesus, and in that view, "Nazareth" didn't even exist.
Quote:Bulgakov is not clear about the place where Yeshua lived. In chapter 2, Yeshua said to Pilate that he comes from Gamala, but in chapter 26, Yeshua is described as the En-Sarid begger, coming from النَّاصِرَة [En-Sarid], the Arabic name for Nazareth.
http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/en/03ka...sjoea.html

Quote:Ancient Times
Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence for Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area.

Roman period

James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: "Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century CE. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea."[39] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ as "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to "a maximum of about 480."[40] In 2009, Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[41][42] Other sources state that during Jesus' time, Nazareth had a population of 400 and one public bath, which was important for civic and religious purposes.[43]

However of the artifacts uncovered from the area of the bathhouse and dated by historians, or by using radiocarbon dating, none are known to predate the 2nd century AD. All artifacts are either Byzantine design (7th and 8th century AD). Some construction, although not radiocarbon dated, may extend as far back as the late Roman Era (2nd and 3rd century AD).

...
A tablet at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, dating to 50 CE, was sent from Nazareth to Paris in 1878. It contains an inscription known as the "Ordinance of Caesar" that outlines the penalty of death for those who violate tombs or graves. However, it is suspected that this inscription came to Nazareth from somewhere else (possibly Sepphoris). Bagatti writes: "we are not certain that it was found in Nazareth, even though it came from Nazareth to Paris. At Nazareth there lived various vendors of antiquities who got ancient material from several places."
...
A Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century mentions Nazareth as the home of the priestly Hapizzez family after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 AD).[56] From the three fragments that have been found, the inscription seems to be a list of the twenty-four priestly courses (cf. 1 Chronicles 24:7–19; Nehemiah 11;12), with each course (or family) assigned its proper order and the name of each town or village in Galilee where it settled. Nazareth is not spelled with the "z" sound but with the Hebrew tsade (thus "Nasareth" or "Natsareth").[57] Eleazar Kalir (a Hebrew Galilean poet variously dated from the 6th to 10th century) mentions a locality clearly in the Nazareth region bearing the name Nazareth נצרת (in this case vocalized "Nitzrat"), which was home to the descendants of the 18th Kohen family Happitzetz (הפצץ), for at least several centuries after the Bar Kochva revolt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Ancient_times

So settlement in Nazareth existed back to Neolithic times, and it existed in the 2nd c., but what is more debatable if we exclude the Biblical record, is whether a small, barely noticed settlement of eg. 400 people existed there in the 1st c. AD or was the area totally empty for miles.

The place has been vastly built up today and remains from that period are probably underground. Lack of remains doesn't seem very persuasive to me that the place never existed. If Nazareth didn't exist, it wouldn't prove that "Jesus the Nazarene" didn't exist, and vice verse.

I think that it's most likely that there was some settlement within, say, a 5 mile radius of the area, rather than the place being totally empty, since we have records and/or archaeology outside Christian references that the Jewish settlement existed in the early 2nd c.

I doubt that the Hapizzez family and the Hebrew inscription were both going to make up a Nazareth location name found only in Christian writings and well known to Galileans (as it would have to be) be a Christian falsely invented town.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2017, 06:01 AM
Post: #26
RE: Russian movie Master and Margarita, depicting Seventh Proof of God's existence
I'm pretty much convinced that Jesus was Caesarion, son of the Virgin Isis (Cleopatra) and the living god (Julius Caesar). Being the legitimate heir of Caesar's Rome & the Ptolemy's empire made him literally king of the world. The Ptolemies were also allies with the Hebrews. Jesus' teachings are the embodiment of the Essenes. Caesarion also visited India as a teenager. Caesarion's Egyptian names literally mean King of Kings and Sun of Righteousness.

The Talk page about Caesarion on Wikipedia is very interesting:
Quote:Will wikipedia not allow discussion of Caesar(ion) as Christ. Topic removed several times. [text redacted here, see my comments below in response] MBJ 68.46.234.114 (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.114 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for you to present your views. If you have reliable sources - see WP:RS that suggest this, then you can suggest them here, but what you can't do is just argue your views. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

so does this require that a previous source called him the son of god? It is inscribed on the walls of the Temple of Mentu at erment(also an early christian chruch). Is that not a valid reference? I have previously posted specific references. But are you saying that what is needed is for a western writer to have written something in support of this idea? I have posted references to articles in the Journal of Roman Studies by W.W. Tarn and Miklejohn -- however they too were removed. Ironically without access to the articles (as most don't have access to the archives of the various journals) how would anyone know the contents of the article? I also posted a paragraph from the abstract, to give a reader an idea of the discussion of the article, that too was also removed.on the one hand you say i must present sources, on the other you will not allow them to be presented. Do i need a reference for our calender year? no everyone knows the names of the months, do I need a reference for the reason they are named -- that is common knowledge, everyone knows July is for Julius and August for octavian. The ONLY thing I did was connect the dots, so you are saying that someone must have had the idea before and someone else must have published it? That June-July-August, is equivalent to Juno Julius and Augustus is clearly obvious, regardless of weather or not the fact is published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.56 (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


O.K. I'll be even more simple -- his name is Ir Maat Ra -- the "Sun of Righteousness" is the old testament name for christ. His name is a specific reference to him as the Judeo-Christian Messiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.56 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So this "discussion" page is for "citations"? or is the discussion of the topic of the article? I have posted references -- the issue is the topic. The page you linked to is not appropriate. The Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page begins with the sentence "Wikipedia articles should be based.." and the policy of verifiability says it is strictly applied to main page materials and Living personalities. Is this the discussion page, and not the "main page"? I do not consider this page the "article" but a page of discussion about the "article". As a wiki user, when I want to know if there is any 'out of the mainstream" discussion of a subject of interest I look on the discussion pages of the articles to "hear what people are saying in the 'back alleys'. I know it is discussion and not the encyclopedia article. The user who selects the discussion tab is seeking supplementary information. Now you did not request any specific reference for any specific claim -- you removed the text in its entirety. Moreover you used the premise the text did not meet the wiki standards for MAIN PAGE ARTICLE CONTENT. Have I edited the main page? The issue is the topic, most of the 'facts', as they are, are well known -- this discussion is over the interpretation of accepted facts. It is no argument that he was King of Kings, or even that he was Son of "a" God. The issue is the judeo-christian nature of his King of King Son of Godness. I use accepted facts to demonstrate that the history and religion support the claim. I make note of the "gentiles" Philadelphus, Philopater, and Philometor. The three are very intimately connected to Judeo-Christian history through the Septuagint and the Maccabees. It is most peculiar that Caesar(and his brother) is named after them. It is very significant that Philometor built a Temple in egypt that provided refuge to hebrews, was staffed by levite priest, functioned according to the law, and received YHVHs sacrifice(tel-el yahudiya). These are facts that are not in dispute. The parable of the tribute penny is known. Octavian's divi filius coin with the big star looking comet is known; it was in circulation. Again all accepted facts. Incidentally the term "hypocrite" is quite specific and can only be true in limited circumstances that are only amplified when Caesar is considered. Your issue is the topic, I have only discussed facts related to the subject of the article. 68.46.234.56 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)MBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.56 (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  100% Undeniable Proof Apollo Moon Landings Real EVILYOSHIDA 72 10,925 12-09-2017 01:37 PM
Last Post: jho
Photo Earliest views of God in civilizations Rako 162 22,853 11-28-2017 03:56 AM
Last Post: jho
  Batman: An Ancient Mayan God Allan What 68 16,778 11-07-2017 12:43 PM
Last Post: CTsar
  Louis Farrakhan, Master troll LOL. EVILYOSHIDA 13 3,162 10-17-2017 08:25 PM
Last Post: Redneck

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)