Zeitgeist and other lies of he media

Damian Mahadevan said:

The passage on Jesus by Josephus was altered, however they have found unaltered text from Josephus that has teh same passage mention Jesus well.

Click to expand...

What is your source for this suggestion?

JemyM said:

What is your source for this suggestion?

Click to expand...

I edited and gave the source and unedited text.

JemyM said:

I have a test. If someone mentions Seutonius or Pliny, I know they haven't checked their information. They are passing on hearsay.

Click to expand...

That's pretty funny.

I am glad to see I passed your test.

blatantninja said:

That's pretty funny.

Click to expand...

I was insulted the first time I bothered to chase them down (Pliny to Trajanus, Letter 10, 96 and 97 as well as Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16:2 & Claudius, 25:4) but it frustrates me to keep seeing people mentioning these as sources.

Anyone who read Pliny knows it speaks about Christians, not Christ. This is pretty black and white, no dispute. Only people who do not check sources would ever mention it to be a source about Christ or Jesus.

Suetonius mentions Christians (Nero 16:2) and a Chrestus (Claudius 25:4), not Jesus. Early on it was believed to say Chrestianos rather than Christians. Chrestianos means "the good". 2008 the passage was put under UV light which showed that the word had been changed (e was changed into an i). The greatest problem is that the events put forth by Suetonius is in 49-50 ad and refers to this guy.

Finally, Eusebius is yet again blamed for modifying this text due to the phrase "mischievous superstition", a phrase commonly used by Eusebius but not by Suetonius.

heh, the Chrest vs Christ controversy. Its a good think I don't know/check my sources.

blatantninja said:

As for the books of the apostles, of course there are discrepencies. What would you expect? Ever seen an accident? Ever ask more than one person what happened? Ever get the EXACT same story?

Click to expand...

The harmony of the Bible is a terrific subject and required for 1st year Bible College.

And the Talmud references are hillarious. You guys should check them out just for the laugh. There's one about a sorcerer from 100bce that was thrown out of egypt and hid notes with magical spells typed on them beneath his skin. Another called "Ben Pantera" (son of Pantera, from a roman soldier called Pantera who raped Ben Panteras mother). Appearently barber in hebrew is "M’gaddela Nashaia".

Thing is, Talmud is quite complex to grasp. When Christianity begun to grow, the jews made their own research and their marked people in their books that might have been Jesus. When we analyse them now though we see that the references refer to different people, none of which make a match. However, Talmud might have inspired some of the later myths about Jesus.

JemyM said:

And the Talmud references are hillarious. You guys should check them out just for the laugh. There's one about a sorcerer from 100bce that was thrown out of egypt and hid notes with magical spells typed on them beneath his skin. Another called "Ben Pantera" (son of Pantera, from a roman soldier called Pantera who raped Ben Panteras mother). Appearently barber in hebrew is "M’gaddela Nashaia".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Talmud Hebrew, because some things have changed, but barber in Modern Hebrew is sah-par. With the r being pronounced in the non-english fashion.
M'gaddela Nashaia sounds more like grower of something than barber though.

blatantninja said:

Given that priests were often the only ones literate, it's a pretty bad idea to toss out anything they write just because you don't like them.

Click to expand...

Thing is that back in the era JC supposedly lived not only priests were literate, big schools and libraries were all over the place

blatantninja said:

Not sure if the Roman you refer to is Josephus or not, but he writes about Christ twice in Antiquities of the Jews. The first, and most well known, passage has been disputed because it appears to have been altered, though there is a 10th century Arabic version that appears to reference the original. Either way, while their is dispute about the exact language of it (and how much has been inserted later), there is little dispute that Josephus did write a passage in that spot that referenced Jesus of Nazareth.

Click to expand...

10th century Arabic version...i have trouble understanding how xians count time , this is written 1.000 years later. Josephus script is considered as a fabrication by all credible sources

blatantninja said:

As for the books of the apostles, of course there are discrepencies. What would you expect? Ever seen an accident? Ever ask more than one person what happened? Ever get the EXACT same story?

Click to expand...

Apologies for not giving details but i lost my USB with the lectures on Jesus ; the case goes like this : All disciples were Jews , Jews have a big feast celebration like let's say it is thanksgiving or haloween , Jesus crucifixion is same day ; the event is just too big for his students not to remember what day it was yet one writes that after JC's crucifixion "crowds left to join the feast" and the other writes that the last meal was that feast.
Of course we should not forget that those guys wrote their books at the tender age of 350

blatantninja said:

Tacitus wrote about Christ being crucified in his Annals (116AD).

Click to expand...

Christ is not a name , it is a title , Greek for "the anointed" , Apollonios could be the anointed as well and this one was a real person , if a Christ ever existed for me it was him.

blatantninja said:

The simple fact is that there aren't a lot of writings that have survived from this time frame PERIOD.

Click to expand...

This is true

blatantninja said:

the Christian movement was not a major event in the Roman Empire at the time it occured. Even within Judaea at the time it began it was considered more of a minor nuisance than anything. Why would you expect all sorts of historians of the time to be making note of it?

Click to expand...

I didn't ask for all , one will do and there is none

Thank you for replying

What about Josephus?

You guys are getting sucked into this, which is what he wants. Just thought I'd point that out.

This is IMHO harmless and interesting debate. So I'd say, let the show go on.

Lies? Well, i saw it a while back. Years, even. But lets see….

1. jesus didnt exist as a man but as the Sun which people worshiped. Seems quite likely?

2. 911 was an inside job? Well, the towers sure as hell didn't fall free-fall speed from a little jet fuel. And jet fuel doesnt leave molten metal at the base for 6 months after, like thermite does. And tower 7? Not hit by a plane. Whatever you believe here you know somethings not right….

3. Wars have been entered into using false flag attacks to provoke national indignity and rage through history. Wars are not supposed to be won, but sustained for profit of the oil and weaponry corporations. Well…. True.

4. The federal reserve is privately owned. True. Makes money out of thin air. true. Wont give you a proper gold standard? true. The money to pay back the interest on the loans DOESNT EXIST NOR WAS EVER PRINTED in the system so inflation wont stop? True again.

5. The whole economic hitman thing. Give a loan to a poor country then rip them off via it to get dirt cheap labour and resources? true.

6. Global elite? Do they exist? Well, duh I'm not sure zeitgeist even mentions half of it. Do they want population reduction to 500,000,000? ITS CARVED IN STONE AFTER ALL. seriously….

I think Zeitgeist was pretty true, really. But I suppose I should view the link and dispute that… Whats it say? Jesus is real, the war on terror is totally legit, the fed isn't ripping americans off? cmon lol

SirJames said:

Lies? Well, i saw it a while back. Years, even. But lets see….

1. jesus didnt exist as a man but as the Sun which people worshiped. Seems quite likely?

Click to expand...

But its not. But it isnt that paticular fact that is the issue. It is the decptive tricks he uses to get people to believe what he says. The "messiah" and "son of god" phrases are apparently unique to christianity, earlier myths simply dont use those phrases for example. The astrological references are complete bs too. The podcast covers everything very well. But it isnt just zeitgeist that i have an issue with though, it is the fact that no one ever gets into trouble for lying except under oath even on a large scale. I take issue with that.

JemyM said:

I have a test. If someone mentions Seutonius or Pliny, I know they haven't checked their information. They are passing on hearsay.

Click to expand...

I kind of disagree regarding Pliny Minor. In the very last book of his letters there are the letters XCVI (Pliny Minor -> Emperor Traian) and XCVII (Traian -> Pliny Minor).

Still impressing throughout the millennia, the last two sentences of Traian are striking (my attempt to translate them German -> English) :

"Anonymous bills of indictment must not be considered at any crime. Because this would be a very bad example and would not be in accordance to the spirit of this age."

To me, this is a far glimpse to why Pliny Minor and so many others preised Trian as "the just emperor", so to say. After the other emperors, TRian's view and ethics were refreshingly fair.

Edit : Someone has translated them here : http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_plinyltrstrajan.htm

Edit II : Gutenberg translation : http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?pageno=117&fk_files=2025 and here : http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2025&pageno=118

Alrik Fassbauer said:

I kind of disagree regarding Pliny Minor. In the very last book of his letters there are the letters XCVI (Pliny Minor -> Emperor Traian) and XCVII (Traian -> Pliny Minor).

Still impressing throughout the millennia, the last two sentences of Traian are striking (my attempt to translate them German -> English) :

"Anonymous bills of indictment must not be considered at any crime. Because this would be a very bad example and would not be in accordance to the spirit of this age."

To me, this is a far glimpse to why Pliny Minor and so many others preised Trian as "the just emperor", so to say. After the other emperors, TRian's view and ethics were refreshingly fair.

Edit : Someone has translated them here : http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_plinyltrstrajan.htm

Edit II : Gutenberg translation : http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?pageno=117&fk_files=2025 and here : http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2025&pageno=118

Click to expand...

Do I have to explain to you why these explains nothing about Jesus or Christ?

Evid3nc3s latest video in his series Why I am no longer a Christian goes through the historical background of the Old Testament (3.3.3 Atheism - A History of God (Part 1)).

That said, his videos are very recomended to watch from the beginning as he is one of the most emotional and compelling storytellers on youtube. His first few are stumbling but he gets better and better.

JemyM said:

[url="http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/c/A0C3C1D163BE880A]Evid3nc3s[/url]

Click to expand...

can you please correct the link? im interested on the video

Tragos said:

can you please correct the link? im interested on the video

Click to expand...

Done.

I am referring to the playlist "Why I am no longer a Christian".

I know why I am not a Christian - and I have to wonder what's interesting about why someone else isn't… Guess I'll never know.