Bible code

[_astheruinfalls]

I saw a thing on this on the History channel last night.

Thoughts?

[shrguy]

i have no idea what it is.... elaborate?

[No Control]

I saw this as well on the History Channel, its interesting but false (you're talking about all the things in the Bible where they can foresee the future and such correct?) I just think you can take anything really and try to establish that as being able to foresee the future,

[Chemical Love]

i'm taking a Bible class at the moment. the teacher is horrible and makes me hate the Bible.

[venus/bacchus]

I saw this as well on the History Channel, its interesting but false (you're talking about all the things in the Bible where they can foresee the future and such correct?) I just think you can take anything really and try to establish that as being able to foresee the future,
How can you possibly say it's "false"? The statistical odds of being able to make these connections would actually "prove" it to be very "true". Now, I'm not so sure that I believe in it, or it's just a bizarre coincidence, but I don't think you can look at either and say it's absolutely true or absolutely false.

The most ironic part of the Bible Code is there's no way of accurately predicting the future because in order to know what to search for, the event has to actually occur.

[Saryan]

How can you possibly say it's "false"? The statistical odds of being able to make these connections would actually "prove" it to be very "true". Now, I'm not so sure that I believe in it, or it's just a bizarre coincidence, but I don't think you can look at either and say it's absolutely true or absolutely false.

The most ironic part of the Bible Code is there's no way of accurately predicting the future because in order to know what to search for, the event has to actually occur.
See, thats where you are wrong. We, as humans, are entitled to make decisions on however little fact we feel necessary. And being adamant about said decision is always best. So, after all that, I will say the bible code is TRUE, because I believe in the bible.

[_astheruinfalls]

I saw this as well on the History Channel, its interesting but false (you're talking about all the things in the Bible where they can foresee the future and such correct?) I just think you can take anything really and try to establish that as being able to foresee the future,
Yeah. That's where I got it.

I don't know. It's weird. But the ways they make it is just so fucked up. They make the weirdest combinations.

[_astheruinfalls]

It is just taking the 5 or 10 letter in sequence of the bible and making words right?
Yeah.

But they take the weirdest combinations and say, "Oh, this means blahblahblah."

[scitsofreaky]

Well, I have heard that it has been wrong, as in, unable to correctly predict something. I am not sure what, but that is just what I heard.

[Touched]

How many pages are in the bible? Thousands.
If you took 10 Ian Rankin novels you could probably find some kind of codes in there too or Enid Blyton.

[venus/bacchus]

How many pages are in the bible? Thousands.
If you took 10 Ian Rankin novels you could probably find some kind of codes in there too or Enid Blyton.
I know on that History Channel special they did use Moby Dick as a reference, and found some codes in there, but not with nearly as high a frequency or as many statistical anomalies.

[sleepygrlgreen]

I posted about this a couple of minutes ago and realized that there was already a thread about this so I'm just going to copy and paste my post here. Comment if you'd like.

"Message from God?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you believe that there actually is a bible code and that it has predicted major events (like 9/11, the great depression, war (from the american revolution to wwII), the rise of communism, JFK's assassination...the list goes on) and the achievements of people through out history (a few of them being edison, shakespeare, the wright brothers, einstein, and newton)?

There is a lot of controversy circulating this issue (like whether or not these were messages of god or "someone else") and I'd like to know what your opinions are.
__________________

[scitsofreaky]

Yes: If you go to southern Asia you are going to die!!! Mewhahahahahaha!

[venus/bacchus]

I posted about this a couple of minutes ago and realized that there was already a thread about this so I'm just going to copy and paste my post here. Comment if you'd like.

"Message from God?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you believe that there actually is a bible code and that it has predicted major events (like 9/11, the great depression, war (from the american revolution to wwII), the rise of communism, JFK's assassination...the list goes on) and the achievements of people through out history (a few of them being edison, shakespeare, the wright brothers, einstein, and newton)?

There is a lot of controversy circulating this issue (like whether or not these were messages of god or "someone else") and I'd like to know what your opinions are.
__________________
Personally, I believe in a higher power and I believe that there are many ways in which he/she/it attempts to communicate with us. I don't believe that the Torah is word for word what this power dictated to its authors, so that makes it very difficult to actually assume that the Bible Code is correct (a direct transcript of those godly words would be the only possible way of accurately producing the Bible Code). I do believe, however, that it is definitely possible for a higher power to attempt to warn us of impending doom. We just need to open our eyes (and minds in a lot of cases) to everything going on around us.

[sleepygrlgreen]

Personally, I believe in a higher power and I believe that there are many ways in which he/she/it attempts to communicate with us. I don't believe that the Torah is word for word what this power dictated to its authors, so that makes it very difficult to actually assume that the Bible Code is correct (a direct transcript of those godly words would be the only possible way of accurately producing the Bible Code). I do believe, however, that it is definitely possible for a higher power to attempt to warn us of impending doom. We just need to open our eyes (and minds in a lot of cases) to everything going on around us.

I do believe in that as well, but thousands of years worth of translations have to be taken into consideration. If this Bible Code was in fact a higher being's attempt to communicate with us, it must have been altered or skewed in some way, shape, or form. I think that this falls into the same category as the prophecies of Nostradamus. I don't think that the predictions found could all just be rather large coincidences, but I can't help but be slightly skeptical.

[scitsofreaky]

I hope by "accurate" you just mean that it has not changed from its original state.

[venus/bacchus]

I do believe in that as well, but thousands of years worth of translations have to be taken into consideration. If this Bible Code was in fact a higher being's attempt to communicate with us, it must have been altered or skewed in some way, shape, or form. I think that this falls into the same category as the prophecies of Nostradamus. I don't think that the predictions found could all just be rather large coincidences, but I can't help but be slightly skeptical.
Like Trevor said, the versions of the Torah we have are completely unchanged from the original (to the best of our knowledge).

When I said that it would have to be "completely accurate" I was talking about the dictation of God's words. Let's say the writer (although it's been argued that there may have been more than one) just messed up one letter, that would throw off the whole code that God was trying to give us. I think it'd be a pretty big assumption to think that we could copy the word of God letter for letter.

P.S. Nostradamus was full of shit. I bought the Complete Works of Nostradamus a few years ago, and he makes nothing but vague analogies that people then have to assume is about a certain country or person. He never once says "[this person] will be assassinated." He'll say it like "the king shall kneel to a child, and a country will be in turmoil." Whoa! He totally predicted that!!

[scitsofreaky]

Well, Nostradamus just did what most prophets do: make vague statements that can be interpreted however anybody wants. I see little difference from the Bible, which says vague things, that if they don't come true, "believers" just say that it wasn't meant literally. Also, they aren't very specific either, they never give a time, it is always "soon." Soon for who?

[theESCO]

I'm not sure if I buy into the Bible Code yet...I'd like to, I really would. Things like this fascinate the hell out of me.

I guess I'll just have to wait to see if a big quake hits Cali in 2010...and if that happens, I'll believe it and start prepping for the end of the world (as we know it) in 2012.

(Didn't that John Titor guy, hoax or not, also say a drastic change in the world would occur in 2012?)

[sleepygrlgreen]

I'm not sure if I buy into the Bible Code yet...I'd like to, I really would. Things like this fascinate the hell out of me.

I guess I'll just have to wait to see if a big quake hits Cali in 2010...and if that happens, I'll believe it and start prepping for the end of the world (as we know it) in 2012.

(Didn't that John Titor guy, hoax or not, also say a drastic change in the world would occur in 2012?)

That's what the Mayans and Aztecs have predicted. According to their calendar, the end of our present state is to be on December 22, 2012. I researched the Aztecs a little bit last year. It's really fascinating stuff.

[exthuse]

The bible. A book. A fiction book.

[venus/bacchus]

The bible. A book. A fiction book.
Please elaborate.

[exthuse]

No it's just something to make people have beliefs. If nobody had beliefs which arose from the bible then no-one would believe in anything

[venus/bacchus]

No it's just something to make people have beliefs. If nobody had beliefs which arose from the bible then no-one would believe in anything
That's obviously not true. How can you explain atheists having beliefs? Or even Muslims, Buddhists, or simply agnostics? Beliefs don't have to stem from the Bible. And you've still yet to prove to me how it's a fiction book.

[exthuse]

Have you ever seen anything proved from the bible?

[venus/bacchus]

Actually yes, a vast majority of it.

You're still dodging my question, which says to me you really know nothing about the Bible.

[exthuse]

No i'm not. If it's a real book why don't we have any proof of anything that happened all these years ago? Where's these tombs Jesus resurrected in, anyone seen them, I sure aint. I'm not saying it's necessarily a fiction book, even though I did. I'm saying it can be deemed aas a fiction book because in troubled times, people aren't going to pick up a dictionary or read Harry Potter. They would turn to the bible, because it's full of beliefs, stories, explanations of things too sort things. I just don't get how it can all be real with the theory of "how the world started" and why we don't have much proof of anything that happened 2000 years ago. The only proof we got it a book full of morals, stories, parables, etcetera

[theESCO]

I wouldn't say it's fiction...but I would say it's 'based on a true story.' Which leaves room for stretchings, and other things of that nature.

[venus/bacchus]

No i'm not. If it's a real book why don't we have any proof of anything that happened all these years ago? Where's these tombs Jesus resurrected in, anyone seen them, I sure aint. I'm not saying it's necessarily a fiction book, even though I did. I'm saying it can be deemed aas a fiction book because in troubled times, people aren't going to pick up a dictionary or read Harry Potter. They would turn to the bible, because it's full of beliefs, stories, explanations of things too sort things. I just don't get how it can all be real with the theory of "how the world started" and why we don't have much proof of anything that happened 2000 years ago. The only proof we got it a book full of morals, stories, parables, etcetera
We may not have any actual physical proof of Jesus' existence, but we do have documents from notable historians who were contemporaries who mentioned him. People like Tacitus, Josephus, and Origen were highly credible, and verified his existence. We also may not have the tomb Jesus was buried in (there's no reason to even look for it, I'm fairly certain it wasn't very highly garnished because his followers believed he'd just raise from the dead 3 days later anyway), but we do have the tomb that Peter was buried in, not too many years later. You can also cite the epistles as a source of proof that Jesus did in fact exist. They were the writings of followers in the early church who were attempting to spread this religion. They were incredibly divided also, which would cite "proof" that this wasn't some grand delusion intended to fool thousands of people. There is also a lot of archaeological proof of the Bible being overturned in the Holy Land. Sadly though, a lot of it is being destroyed because of the Muslim-Jewish battle for the claim to whose land it really is. Muslim archaeologists destroy Jewish artifacts and vice versa. To say there is no "proof" has no backing.
I wouldn't say it's fiction...but I would say it's 'based on a true story.' Which leaves room for stretchings, and other things of that nature.
Finally, somebody who gets it.
The thing that's funny to me is those Christians who thinks the world is only like 6 milliion years old or whatever.
Even funnier, they actually think it's only 6000 years old.

[scitsofreaky]

Actually, Jesus' contemporaries don't mention him, Tacitus, the most commonly cited one by christians, didn't even live during Jesus' time. His contemporaries were really Philo of Alexandria and Justin of Tiberius, and they never make any reference to Jesus or any of the events of his life: no killing of children by Herod, no miracle man, no miracles, no mystery teacher, no empty tomb, not mid-day darkness --
nothing.

[venus/bacchus]

How would you explain Josephus? He was definitely a contemporary (although their lives didn't overlap, they're still considered contemporaries) and had a fairly common entry on Jesus. I know there is a translation floating around which has a believed interpolation, but the one I'm referring to is from an Arabic translation, from (possibly the original) Greek.

Also, you cite the fact that Philo may not have actually used Jesus' name, but ignore the fact that most early Christians viewed Philo as a Christian and that he wrote primarily on the Torah and Jewish Law, not Jewish history. In all my research and reading I've done on this (and debating on these very boards), I've never heard the name Justin of Tiberius. I've heard Justin Martyr, but that's obviously not what you're referring to. If you could give me a link or some info, that'd be appreciated.

Along those same lines, you need to understand that there are only 2 known sources of Jesus' "contemporaries" and neither (I can't say much about Justin of Tiberius) focused much on Christians. They were a fledgling religion at the time, barely worth a bat of an eye. Why would they deserve the recognition of being recorded in the Talmud, or other extremely imporant Jewish texts, when they meant to undermine a fundamental belief of Judaism? There could very well have been contemporary sources, we just don't know. But those two (I know of Philo) don't seem like the two who would feel the need to write about Christian history in the first place.

Now, are Pliny the Younger and Suetonius no longer valid sources either? Because if you want something a little more recent, can I refer to any of the epistles? Or are those just "biased"? Paul did an incredible job of chronicling the early church (whether he knew he was or not) and showcasing the deep chasms between those who actually knew Jesus in life (Petrines/Jerusalem Church) and the church Paul was setting up. I think all of that information must be considered as a valid historical reference. Paul expresses the disbelief of many of the Apostles at Paul's ignoring of many of Jesus' teachings. This seems to come out and actually address a historical Jesus, otherwise there would be no reason for the Petrines to be offended.

I know your feelings on Tacitus, but I want to know why you would doubt the fact that a Roman historian with no ties to Chrisitanity would even show any desire to mention a person with whom a "cult" (as he refers to them as) has claimed to have existed and is God. He even goes as far as calling the Christians "sinners." He seems to be the perfect source. Unbiased, even going as far as expressing a detestment of the religion, and with most likely the ability to see sources of Jesus' crucifixion, seeing as how they were carried out by Roman authorities. Why would he fabricate something and risk the authenticity of his historical document?

I guess that's all for now. I'll try to drudge up the argument I had on here about a year ago with notxedge on the exact same thing. I'm sure I've forgotten some details since then.

[scitsofreaky]

If Josephus' life didn't overlap, than I don't see his authority to say what happened, because he didn't experience it first hand.
Tiberius went on information that he heard, and he probably heard about a cult that believed thier leader was God.
I don't consider Paul to be a valid source because he is trying to support a church that he is starting, and is therefore bias. Also, just because he doesn't teach exactly what other christians taught, doesn't make him a valid source.
Also, something as noticable as mid-day darkness would surely have been noted by someone who lived then. Unless, of course, they were just exaggerating what really happened. And if that is the case, we really can't know that they didn't exaggerate or completely make up everything else.
I will get back to you one Justin of Tiberius after I double check my source.

[sleepygrlgreen]

When Venus asked you to elborate, I'm going to take a guess and say that, that would be the last time you will post in this thread.

That's a shame.

[theESCO]

Ok...we can debate the existence of God, as we have many times before. But debating that there was never a man alive who preched 'the word of god' (Jesus) is kind of ridiculous (and those I've debated religion with on here know, coming from me that means at least a little something).

[Sing to Me]

oh man, I LOVE mythology

Ok...we can debate the existence of God, as we have many times before. But debating that there was never a man alive who preched 'the word of god' (Jesus) is kind of ridiculous (and those I've debated religion with on here know, coming from me that means at least a little something).

plently of people preached the "word of God". there was probably a guy named Jesus that said things that he thinks God told him. weather or not i believe that it was God that told him, or him just hallucinating from the heat, is my business.

[scitsofreaky]

Well, I think that Jesus may be a mix of different men, kind of like King Arthur.
It is possible that Jesus is just a name fabricated using Greek gematria. Iesous= 888, which is the perfect number.

[venus/bacchus]

If Josephus' life didn't overlap, than I don't see his authority to say what happened, because he didn't experience it first hand.
Tiberius went on information that he heard, and he probably heard about a cult that believed thier leader was God.
I don't consider Paul to be a valid source because he is trying to support a church that he is starting, and is therefore bias. Also, just because he doesn't teach exactly what other christians taught, doesn't make him a valid source.
Also, something as noticable as mid-day darkness would surely have been noted by someone who lived then. Unless, of course, they were just exaggerating what really happened. And if that is the case, we really can't know that they didn't exaggerate or completely make up everything else.
I will get back to you one Justin of Tiberius after I double check my source.
But like you said, we only have 2 sources of historians who did overlap, and one of them didn't even focus on anything but comments on the Torah. He wasn't even much of a "modern historian." Justin of Tiberius is still pending.

When factoring in Paul, you need to look at what he's saying, not why he's saying it. Paul was attempting to start a church in which he was at odds with the people who actually knew the original creator. It isn't as though Paul was writing those epistles as a means of "creating" Jesus. He had no reason. The fact that so many of his contemporary Christians hated him hints at the fact that rewriting the teachings of Jesus was very personal, as though they actually knew him.

I'm not sure, but as far as I'm aware, mid-day darkness only appears in John's gospel (I could be wrong) and doesn't necessarily have to be "true"; it could very well be some sort of allegory. Not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. This is a reason I try not to use the actual Gospels as proof that Jesus existed. They were written many years after his death (40 years later was the first) and probably were only based on oral tradition and some of Paul's letters. They aren't written as "current" like the epistles were.
Well, I think that Jesus may be a mix of different men, kind of like King Arthur.
It is possible that Jesus is just a name fabricated using Greek gematria. Iesous= 888, which is the perfect number.
There is no evidence to actually point to Jesus being a mix of different men. King Arthur, on the other hand, was virtually created by multiple authors over multiple centuries. Jesus would have been "created" within about 5 years after his "death." Somehow the original Apostles had to convince people that only 5 years ago there was a man doing all this preaching and died a miraculous death that they never heard about. I find that very difficult to believe, especially because they also claim that he ruffled a few feathers with the Jewish hierarchy. He could not have gone completely unnoticed, maybe just unmentioned.

[Sing to Me]

What was the point of this post? To tell us you aren't going to tell us what you believe.
The point of my post, if you have over a first grade reading level, is that calling it "ridiculous" for someone to argue that there was no Jesus, is arrogant to people who believe the otherwise.

[venus/bacchus]

The point of my post, if you have over a first grade reading level, is that calling it "ridiculous" for someone to argue that there was no Jesus, is arrogant to people who believe the otherwise.
I would agree that it's somewhat arrogant, but it's a matter of fact. In a situation like this, belief plays little role. So to say that it's ridiculous isn't necessarily being completely arrogant, it may just be stating the facts. On the other hand, Jesus' godliness is a matter of belief, and to claim that those who believe he wasn't god are ridiculous, that is incredibly arrogant.

[theESCO]

oh man, I LOVE mythology



plently of people preached the "word of God". there was probably a guy named Jesus that said things that he thinks God told him. weather or not i believe that it was God that told him, or him just hallucinating from the heat, is my business.

I think you missed what I was saying...Because you pretty much said what I ment, in different words...There's really no debating that there once lived a man named Jesus who preached the word of god...

Like I said

we can debate the existence of God, as we have many times before. But debating that there was never a man alive who preched 'the word of god' (Jesus) is kind of ridiculous

Not everyone believes there is a god, me personaly...I'm kinda undecided, leaning more toward no. But this is the first time I've heard people deny that there was a Jesus...

[scitsofreaky]

There is no evidence to actually point to Jesus being a mix of different men. King Arthur, on the other hand, was virtually created by multiple authors over multiple centuries. Jesus would have been "created" within about 5 years after his "death." Somehow the original Apostles had to convince people that only 5 years ago there was a man doing all this preaching and died a miraculous death that they never heard about. I find that very difficult to believe, especially because they also claim that he ruffled a few feathers with the Jewish hierarchy. He could not have gone completely unnoticed, maybe just unmentioned.
But, as you stated earlier in your response, the gospels were written no earlier than 40 years after Jesus supposed existence by different individuals, and we don't definitively know the authors. So, this seems not unlike the conditions under which Arthur was witten. Many modern historians believe that Arthur is a collaboration of different men combined with exagggerations and myths. It seems to me that this is a good explaination of Jesus. Perhaps there were a few good moral teachers that separatly weren't all too famous, but when combined later into one man, then added to myths of the region (eg Mithraism) and you have a messiah.
One problem with Tacitus is that he calls Pilate a procurator. If this was the case, then he wouldn't have had any say in the fate of Jesus because procurators don't have the power to sentence anyone to death. Also, to be crucified, Jesus would have to have been a threat to the Roman Empire, but he wasn't, instead he was a threat to the Jews, who wouldn't have had to go to Pilate to execute Jesus if they could justify his death.

[scitsofreaky]

Well, no one claims to know who wrote the book of John. Also, many of the apsotles would be getting pretty old by the time they got around to writing. But, I am not really claiming that they weren't, just that it is possible.

[Mad Caddie]

I dunno if this has already been said, but this bible code theory is full of crap. I saw some dude use the same program on the lyrics to a random song and came up with the same sort of predictions. As far as I know, its just a clever computer program.

[WakingTheMisery]

the guys who worte the bible were from the future and went back in time machines and wrote in code. its the only logical explanation.

[venus/bacchus]

But, as you stated earlier in your response, the gospels were written no earlier than 40 years after Jesus supposed existence by different individuals, and we don't definitively know the authors. So, this seems not unlike the conditions under which Arthur was witten. Many modern historians believe that Arthur is a collaboration of different men combined with exagggerations and myths. It seems to me that this is a good explaination of Jesus. Perhaps there were a few good moral teachers that separatly weren't all too famous, but when combined later into one man, then added to myths of the region (eg Mithraism) and you have a messiah.
One problem with Tacitus is that he calls Pilate a procurator. If this was the case, then he wouldn't have had any say in the fate of Jesus because procurators don't have the power to sentence anyone to death. Also, to be crucified, Jesus would have to have been a threat to the Roman Empire, but he wasn't, instead he was a threat to the Jews, who wouldn't have had to go to Pilate to execute Jesus if they could justify his death.
Here's the difference with Jesus and Arthur, the gospels were written within living memory of his life and teachings, while hundreds of years had passed before Arthur's story was written. There is NO historical evidence to support an actual King Arthur, while there IS historical evidence to support a living Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Paul was a gnostic? I've heard this argument before, but I find it incredibly difficult to believe. Paul was completely against "visions" or "signs" of any form, but yet he's expected to somehow adopt a "mystery religion" as his formal basis for Christianity? Paul taught in a very "earthly" sense, the rejection of most spiritual revelations for the effort of readying a kingdom on earth for the (soon he though) return of Jesus. This alone makes it almost impossible for Paul to have adopted Mithraism (or any of the other mystery religions). It was a direct contradiction of teachings.

To be technical, a procurator is a division of the promagistrate, which had ultimate authority over the province in which they presided. Now, procurator may have been an inclusion by Tacitus to relate a commonly known office of his writing time to the responsibilities of the "governor" of Pilate's time. The same idea would be saying "king" as opposed to "tsar" for a modern historian. It isn't "wrong" per se, just sloppy history. Also, to suggest that Tacitus is unreliable would be also to directly oppose his entire Annals as obsolete, unless you're suggesting that the information on Christians and Jesus is an interpolation. It seems incredibly unlikely that that's the case, mainly because no early Christian scribe would denounce the Christians in the way that Tacitus does. The piece is most likely genuinely Tacitus', the only problem is his use of Pilate's title. I don't see how that would debunk the actual existence of Jesus.
Whoa wait? Are you saying the Gospels weren't written by whom they were named after?
Most likely, no. They were probably written by later followers who were seeing that maybe Jesus won't come back in their lifetime and worried that all their stories would be lost. They slapped the name of a few well-known Apostles and voila, you have a "reputable" source.
I dunno if this has already been said, but this bible code theory is full of crap. I saw some dude use the same program on the lyrics to a random song and came up with the same sort of predictions. As far as I know, its just a clever computer program.
The Bible Code has a much higher resultant ratio than any other work of literature (including song lyrics) tested as of yet. There are some serious statistic anomalies, which is something that should pique an interest, although it doesn't "prove" anything. I'm not saying it's true or not, but it's far from a "clever computer program," because the program has very little to do with the actual results.

[scitsofreaky]

I am not saying that Paul mixed in Mithraism into christianity. What I was suggesting was the possibility that other myths that were prevelant during that time were probably mixed into the oral tradition, which the gospels are most likely based. I think that Paul just wrote whatever his listeners wanted to hear.
If Tacitus was sloppy with a title, then we can't really be sure what else he was being sloppy about. Also, his worrks don't seem to appear until the 15th century, thereby increasing the chances that they were, at the very least, altered in some way.

[venus/bacchus]

I am not saying that Paul mixed in Mithraism into christianity. What I was suggesting was the possibility that other myths that were prevelant during that time were probably mixed into the oral tradition, which the gospels are most likely based. I think that Paul just wrote whatever his listeners wanted to hear.
If Tacitus was sloppy with a title, then we can't really be sure what else he was being sloppy about. Also, his worrks don't seem to appear until the 15th century, thereby increasing the chances that they were, at the very least, altered in some way.
That's definitely a possibility, but I wouldn't say it's completely likely the gospels were based on oral tradition. They were all written in a time in which Jesus was still remembered by first hand accounts. This provides a bit more reliability to the gospels. Also, it is believed the gospels used primary sources and just elaborated upon them. Mark, Matthew, and Luke have far too many exact quotes in them (along with the gospel of Thomas) to just be solely oral tradition. If you're playing the telephone game for 40 years, you'll never get as many exact matches as they have.

I understand the concern, but to disregard the quotations on Jesus would mean you would have to in turn disregard the majority of the Annals. That seems pretty irresponsible especially when Tacitus is so highly regarded as the best historian of his time. Also, I find it very difficult to believe that any Christian would have altered the text to include Jesus and the early Christians in that light, regardless of when it "appeared" (it actually is known to have existed much before that, but didn't gain popularity until the 15th century).

[venus/bacchus]

I've always have read that the all the gospels were written by the actual person. They were written in order to "teach, rebuke, and correct" heretics of the early church. Mostly for people who were distorting the teachings.
That's very hard to say. It's definitely possible, but the odds that Mark, Luke, and John were written by an apostle is highly skeptical, especially because of their leanings toward Paulian teachings. They basically do whatever possible to verify Paul's interpreations of Jesus' teachings, and rebuke Peter and the other Apostles' teachings. So the odds that an Apostles who knew Jesus in life would take such liberty with his teachings is pretty unlikely. Matthew, on the other hand, has a very Petrine tradition, but it's believed that it was written as a response to Mark's gospel, as a way of balancing power that the Pauline's seemed to be gaining.

[venus/bacchus]

If im not mistaken when Paul is writting all his letters, he quotes and uses the gospels as referenes. I'll find the verses later if I can.
Does he quote the gospels, or does he quote Jesus? It's pretty likely that the gospel writers used Paul's epistles as a source. But if you could find something, I'm interested.

[venus/bacchus]

It's all good. It's all speculation, the gospels very well could have been written before the epistles.

[scitsofreaky]

That's definitely a possibility, but I wouldn't say it's completely likely the gospels were based on oral tradition. They were all written in a time in which Jesus was still remembered by first hand accounts. This provides a bit more reliability to the gospels. Also, it is believed the gospels used primary sources and just elaborated upon them. Mark, Matthew, and Luke have far too many exact quotes in them (along with the gospel of Thomas) to just be solely oral tradition. If you're playing the telephone game for 40 years, you'll never get as many exact matches as they have.

I understand the concern, but to disregard the quotations on Jesus would mean you would have to in turn disregard the majority of the Annals. That seems pretty irresponsible especially when Tacitus is so highly regarded as the best historian of his time. Also, I find it very difficult to believe that any Christian would have altered the text to include Jesus and the early Christians in that light, regardless of when it "appeared" (it actually is known to have existed much before that, but didn't gain popularity until the 15th century).
You are correct, it is very unlikely that the gospels are completely from oral tradition, thank you for bringing that to my attention. But, we can't be sure what was elaborated upon. Also, I still think that it is a good possibility that he is more than one man, which would crush christianity, but not all of the moral teachings (most of which I agree with, especially the Golden Rule).
I do find it suspicious that his story is not the first like it. For example, Dionysus from Greek Mythology was the son of God, had a virgin mother, died and was resurrected. Apollonius of Tyana was said to work miracles of goodness, cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, his exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was the son of god, he called himself the son of god. He was accused of sedition against Rome and put to death. His followers claimed that he came back to life and taken up into heaven.
Both of these stories predate Jesus.

[scitsofreaky]

It really doesn't matter if they predate the OT because not everything Jesus did was prophecised.

[venus/bacchus]

You are correct, it is very unlikely that the gospels are completely from oral tradition, thank you for bringing that to my attention. But, we can't be sure what was elaborated upon. Also, I still think that it is a good possibility that he is more than one man, which would crush christianity, but not all of the moral teachings (most of which I agree with, especially the Golden Rule).
I do find it suspicious that his story is not the first like it. For example, Dionysus from Greek Mythology was the son of God, had a virgin mother, died and was resurrected. Apollonius of Tyana was said to work miracles of goodness, cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, his exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was the son of god, he called himself the son of god. He was accused of sedition against Rome and put to death. His followers claimed that he came back to life and taken up into heaven.
Both of these stories predate Jesus.
I know the uncertainty of what is "fact" versus "exaggeration," but when you acknowledge that the story of Jesus most likely came from primary sources, you're also acknowledging that it's very likely that the gospels are very accurate in things of historical nature. That would mean Jesus probably did exist, he probably was crucified under Pilate, etc, but instead, his works were exaggerated. There would be no reason for the early church (Paul I'm assuming you mean) to create this amalgamation of prophets. Roman and Greek society at that time was very comfortable with polytheism, and that'd probably be an even better route for Paul to recruit Gentiles. I don't see what the means are.

Since the beginning of time there have been similarities between religious stories. The idea of a man raising from the dead, working miracles, and claiming he was the son of god is not just a coincidence between these two or three stories. They're common "supernatural" traits in all societies. To assume they were "borrowed" from mystery religions is also to assume they were borrowed from Egyptian myths, eastern asia myths, etc. So if you're disregarding them as illegitimate on these means, you're opening up a much larger pandora's box. That's not to say it isn't a possibility, but again, I see no real reason for him, it seems slightly counter-intuitive.

[scitsofreaky]

First off, when I agreed that Jesus came from primary sources, I meant that the men that may have been combined to created Jesus were what the sources where refering.
Second, my source for Justin of Tiberius has finally gotten back to me. For the record, he is a former catholic preist who was a biblical literalist. This is what he told me when I asked who Justin was:
Little is known of Justin, or more commonly spelled Justus, or
Tiberius.
According to Photius of Constantinople, who had access to the works of
Justus of Tiberius, claimed in his own writings that Justus did not
believe
in Jesus since he never made any mention of Jesus or Christians and yet
lived in the time and place of both Jesus and the apostles. Justus
because
of his silence on Jesus and Christians had his writings consigned to
the
flames. Christians were not above burning books and the first Christian
book
burning can be found in Acts. It is impossible to research much about
Justin, or Jutus, because Christians attempted to wipe him from
history.

[venus/bacchus]

First off, when I agreed that Jesus came from primary sources, I meant that the men that may have been combined to created Jesus were what the sources where refering.
Second, my source for Justin of Tiberius has finally gotten back to me. For the record, he is a former catholic preist who was a biblical literalist. This is what he told me when I asked who Justin was:
"Little is known of Justin, or more commonly spelled Justus, or Tiberius. According to Photius of Constantinople, who had access to the works of Justus of Tiberius, claimed in his own writings that Justus did not believe in Jesus since he never made any mention of Jesus or Christians and yet lived in the time and place of both Jesus and the apostles. Justus because of his silence on Jesus and Christians had his writings consigned to the flames. Christians were not above burning books and the first Christian book burning can be found in Acts. It is impossible to research much about Justin, or Jutus, because Christians attempted to wipe him from history."
I know what you were referring to. I was just clarifying that I don't believe that's a tangible reality, but I've gone into that, I don't think I have to anymore.

About Justin (Justus) of Tiberius. Since I actually have Justus to search for now, I looked up a bit about him. This is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus): "The only known text which claims to be a form of official governmental record and which also mentions Jesus is the collection known as the Letters of Herod and Pilate. They are found in some 6th century manuscript copies of the work of Justus of Tiberius (who was of the same time as Josephus). Virtually all scholars dispute the attribution of the texts to Herod or Pilate, and consider them pure (and obvious) propaganda. Early commentators stated that Justus had no mention of Jesus."

That quote would lead me to believe that Justus writings actually survived, and into the 6th century. I don't know when the Christian smear campaign was, but I would guess it predated the use of these texts. It also says that he was the same time as Josephus, which would imply that he never actually lived to see Jesus, so now the only person we're relying on is Philo, and he (like I've said before) never even wrote about current Jewish history, but instead interpretations of the Torah, and the Christians even saw him as a Christian. Also, if the Christians attempted to wipe out his works, why would they attempt to supplement them with writings about Jesus? It's generally one or the other. For a historian to maintain credibility, he needs to be a well known, credible historian. If the Christians tried to rid the world of all traces of him, but at the same time create new works to be attributed to him, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. I find it very difficult to believe (not that there was any interpolation, but that they attempted to destroy all his writings).

[scitsofreaky]

The christians started destroying works that didn't support what they believed. I agree that it would have made sense to just add to the works, but they didn't, instead I guess that thought it was easier to destroy.
Question: Why wouldn't Philo, since he interpreted the Torah, say something about Jesus, a man who was supposedly fulfilling prophecies from the Torah, especialy if he was christian?

[Alan Rupp]

The christians started destroying works that didn't support what they believed. I agree that it would have made sense to just add to the works, but they didn't, instead I guess that thought it was easier to destroy.
Question: Why wouldn't Philo, since he interpreted the Torah, say something about Jesus, a man who was supposedly fulfilling prophecies from the Torah, especialy if he was christian?
It's been over a year since I was supposed to reply to this, so I don't know what I've said before, but...

Philo interpreted the Torah and its application to daily life. He didn't discuss its fulfillment of prophecies and splinter groups, it just wasn't what he did.

Also, early Christians believed De vita contemplativa was a Christian work and that he sympathized with their cause. If they were aware of the fact that he didn't believe Jesus existed, why would they associate his writings with their movement?

[Williamc]

I would say the best description is people know whats going on around there city, but they want to ignore it without being prepared for the worst. They are confused by the media distractions and have forgotten that we have instincts to follow not TV. When you feel that things are not right find a way out of danger. There is to many evil people who want too much power with a lack of understanding,disipline, and knowlege to do whats best. The Bible Code becomes true when it happens because you can read the story line and live doing it when it needs to happen or you can due something about future problems by stopping it. We have been set up for failure with out knowing it until it happens.

[Williamc]

I would say the best description is people know whats going on around there city, but they want to ignore it without being prepared for the worst. They are confused by the media distractions and have forgotten that we have instincts to follow not TV. When you feel that things are not right find a way out of danger. There is to many evil people who want too much power with a lack of understanding,disipline, and knowlege to do whats best. The Bible Code becomes true when it happens because you can read the story line and live doing it when it needs to happen or you can due something about future problems by stopping it. We have been set up for failure with out knowing it until it happens.