Replies

  • He is not a religious leader he doesn't fallow the words of the Lord he is a man who just want to get rich 

    • All the books of the New Testament were writtn btwen about 50AD and the Death of John around the year 100AD. The books from 100AD to 392AD were decided on over that time period after  the Councils of Carthage & Hippo the Cannon (or list of books) was closed  and the New Testament was set in Concrete! There are books that cover all that information.

    • My research into the matter says that there have been no manuscripts found that predate the 70CE seige and sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the tTmple there; that this is because all of that materail was composed after that fact.  Because that NT material was manufactured by members of the Roman imperial family of Vespasion, in particular a Jewish general-cum-governor-cum-historian name of Josephus Flavius (adopted member of the Flavian imperial household of Vespasion & his sons, Titus and Domitian, who succeeded their father onto the throne of the Roman Empire).  The point was to get the Jews to stop their incessant, and futile, rebelling against the yoke of Rome because of their belief in a militaristic Messiah who would come and lead them to victory over their enemies.  They schemed to do this by coming up with the idea of a pacifistic Messiah, who had come back at the beginning of that generation and who counseled them to 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's' - ie., to stop looking for their 'salvation' in this life, rather, to obey their lords and masters.  Josephus had seen the writing on the wall, and, in order to save his own skin, inveigled his way into that imperial household, in service to Caesar - in order to 'live and fight another day'.  Which he, as a member of the Jewish priestly lineage, and a number of his fellow priests (with their families), did, by becoming the first leaders of the new religion.  And which is why the Roman Catholic Church practices celibaby for its bishops: So that the Bishop of Rome (now called the Pope) would maintain control over the new religion, in order that other bishops couldn't pass their leadership on to their sons.  All of this is documented clearly and cogently in a couple of books in particular: 'The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold' by 'Acharya S' (pen name), and 'Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus' by Joseph Atwill.

      This will be a bitter pill for Christians to have to swallow.  But we MUST live by Truth.  As the political scene in today's world so graphically attests to.  Left to our own devices, we will succumb to those souls who have sold themselves to the Dark side, in this Drama that we are but characters in.  This Drama of Life.  Life being a school.  And the purpose being to graduate.  Not to get bogged down in it.  To hold up our advancement; on the spiral stairway to the heavens.  And thus, fulfilling our potential.  As facets, fractals, aspecs, points of view, expressions of our Creator Source.  And thus, being creators in our own right.  Not - as the New World Order crowd think - by expressing Power Over Others (or POO faor short).  But by Power With, and from Within.  A hard lesson.  But an important one.  If we would indeed be as unto our Creator.        

    • If what you are posting is true, can you please explain this? Jack Sacco Reveals the Science of the Resurrection - YouTube

       

    • I read a book on the Shroud many years ago which made a very strong case, including the dating of the material by pollen in it (I believe it was), that it was the shroud that the French authorities (Church and State) wrapped Jacque DeMolay in, after they had scourged him and before he died, as part of their takedown of the Knights Templar; many others of whom managed to flee for their lives, particularly to Scotland.  All, another story.  I don't know of any evidence to the contrary coming  forth since the time of that book on the matter.  As for the idea of a scourged and resurrected godman, it was a prevalent, long-standing theme at the time of the birth of the Christian religion, involving the theme of the return of life in the spring .  'Acharya S' (D.M. Murdock)  goes into all of this in great, well-researched detail in her book that I referred to, 'The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold'.  It is an intriguing story; I recommend it, to any sincere truthseeker.            

    • Stan I was referred to this Knowledgable person regarding your original premise."Dear Matt,

       
      "There are no Christian manuscripts that pre-date the Fall of Jerusalem." You can inform Stan there are no Roman manuscripts that pre-date the Fall of Jerusalem either. For almost all ancient literature, all we have are copies of copies of copies: for Julius Caesar, as much as John the Apostle.
       
      There are no credible scholars who do this for a living--even the agnostic and atheist ones who would buy the nonsense Stan is spouting. Bart Ehrman is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman_book)
       
      God Bless,
      Dr. Ed"
       
      God Bless,
      Matthew Ribarich
      Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book)
      Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In this book, writt…
    • Matthew: I'll check into the Ehrman book.  And speaking of books: As you are obviousy a very sincere truthseeker, I encourage you to do two things.  1) Check out the book 'Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus' by Joseph Atwill, which I mentioned.  He has done a major work of scholarsip on the subject; and peope ask cogent questions, and get cogent responses, on his website.  And 2) Check out the book 'Jesus, King of Edessa' by Ralph Elis.  It has some excelent material on this whole subject, including the Paul/Josephus connection.  (He has written a no. of other interesting books as well.  Quite the researcher.)  Best regards.          

    • I guess you dont include the NagHamadi Text? They were tested to have been created around the first century AD.

       

    • Stan, although your knowledge from your sources are impressive. I taped into one of my Spiritual menters (Jesse Romero)who listed the following credible sources as to when the Catholic Church was started non of which were "Catholic Sources".1.Handbook of Denominations by Meade-{who is Protestant},(When every denomination was started listed the Cathyolic CHurch as 33 AD,2.) Oxford Dictionary of Popes has continuous Popes listed all the way back to St Peter,3.)Encyclopedia of Religion Vol12, Page 430-431 Jewish Religion expert, Catholic CHurch was started in 33AD, Also 4.)Encyclopedia Britantica Vol 36,Catholic Church=33AD, 5.)National Encyclopeddia Vol8 Page 514 Catholic Church=33AD, 7.)Illustrated World Encyclopediaa,Vol 12,Page 4147 and Encyclopedia Americana Why do ALL these credible sources claim 33AD as when the Catholic Church was founded, that aren't Catholic?

       

    • Good question.  Joseph Atwill may have an answer to it somewhere on his web site (CaesarsMessiahdocdotcom).  I don't have the time right now to check it out.  First of all: Good digging.  Second: The answer he might give is presumably that the Flavians backdated the info on all this sort of thing the same way that they backdated the whole idea of a pacifistic Messiah back towards the beginning of that generation, i.e., from Titus's siege and sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple there, in 70 CE; to lead up to that actual historical event, in order to 'show' the Jews what happened because of their faiure to heed such a messianic figure's admonition to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" etc.  And it's the same with the 'idea' of Nero sending the Christians to their fates in the Coliseum, or a pacifistic messianic figure walking the terrain of Judea as a major 'miracle worker'.  No historian of the time reported on either matter.  Therefore, there is no independent evidence to the claim.  When people have reason to create something, they can easiy alter the story about it.  And the Flavians - together with their adopted member, Josephus - had very good reason to make up the whole story: 1) It would help to stop the Jews from their perennial revolting against the yoke of Rome; and 2) It saved Josephus's neck, when he was about to be captured and killed by the Roman legions, and figured out a way to live to fight another day.  (Not so incidentally, there is some evidence that Josephus wrote himelf into the so-called New Testament story as the character Saul-become-Paul.  The historical Josephus was shipwrecked on his way to Rome precisely as the character Paul was; they were both figured to be in Rome at the very same time; etc. etc.  It wouldn't be the first time that History was altered, to suit someone's agenda.)    

This reply was deleted.