The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold

[December]

It is pretty interesting book.... Here's a quote from page 191:

Nazareth

The town of Nazareth did not appear on Earth until after the gospel tale was known. As Holley says, "There is no such place as Nazareth in the Old Testament or in Josephus' works, or on early maps of the Holy Land. The name was apparently a later Christian invention." In fact, the town now designated as Nazareth is near Mt. Carmel, indicating it was Carmelites who created it.

Jesus, therefore, was not from Nazareth, which did not exist at the time of his purported advent. The real purpose for putting him there was to make of him a Nazarene or Nazarite, as he was the same as the most famouse Nazarite, Samson, a solar myth.

The title comes from the Egyptian word "natzr", which refers to "the plant, the shoot, the natzar... the true vine," and Nazarite is an epithet for the sun, which gives life to the grape vine. Nazarite is also translated as "prince", as in "prince of peace." The Nazarites/Nazarines were the ascetics who were not to shave their heads or bears unless for ritualistic purpose, because their hair was a symbol of holiness and strength, representing in fact the sun's "hair" or rays, which is why the solar hero becomes weak when the woman cuts his hair. When the hair was long, the Nazarite would have nothing to do with the grape, vine or wine, but when the Nazarete was shorn in a ritual, he would then drink wine.This story reflects the time of the year when the grapes ripen and wine is made, as the sun's rays weaken.

Thus, we see that Nazareth is not the birthplace of Jesus but represents yet another aspect of the mythos. As Massey states, "The actual birthplace of the carnalized Christ was NEITHER BETHLEHEM NOR NAZARETH, BUT ROME!"

http://www.geocities.com/emerging.geo/chr-conspir.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0932813747/102-2328531-9351348?v=glance&n=283155

[Mark L Hamburger]

Or, the actual birthpalce of Jesus doesn't exist, because he never existed.

I know how much you like this sort of thing, so you should watch this: http://zeitgeistmovie.com

It explains a lot of how the Christian religion came about in the first part, and goes on to a lot of other things.

[PatrickHenry]

The power of Jesus is not subject to historical review.

It extends throughout the universe, redeeming and restoring.

[Bill Shatner]

The power of Jesus is not subject to historical review.

It extends throughout the universe, redeeming and restoring.


I think all the scholars that have indeed subjected Jesus to historical review and found him to be a non existent fraud failed to get your memo.

[AmericanDreamer]

The power of Jesus is not subject to historical review.

It extends throughout the universe, redeeming and restoring.

Everything is subject to historical review, unless a persons faith takes priority over the ability to reason. Faith is an interesting thing. It comforts, it consoles, it gives purpose to many. It can also be a very dangerous and self destructive thing. It's easier to say that something is absolute by not requiring proof for it.[hr]

The power of Jesus is not subject to historical review.

It extends throughout the universe, redeeming and restoring.


I think all the scholars that have indeed subjected Jesus to historical review and found him to be a non existent fraud failed to get your memo.

The name "Jesus" is not an Aramaic name. Also, for those that think Jesus was a carpenter, he was not. He was actually a stone worker, or what you would refer to as a stone mason.

[moses2792796]

I think some are missing PatrickHenry's point. The materialistic historical view will never adequetely explain spiritual events. Mythological accounts of history generally contain far more intellectually interesting knowledge and reveal a great deal more about the nature of the people they belong to than the modern historical accounts.

[Bill Shatner]

The name "Jesus" is not an Aramaic name. Also, for those that think Jesus was a carpenter, he was not. He was actually a stone worker, or what you would refer to as a stone mason.


Call him "Jesus", Yeshua Ben Yousef, or even Laddie the Little Leprechaun for all I care it it will not change the fact that we all know who I was talking about and the fact that outside of the bible there is no evidence for any person that the bible refers to as "Jesus".

He simply is a figure of mythology and nothing more. Period.

I think some are missing PatrickHenry's point. The materialistic historical view will never adequetely explain spiritual events.

Why bother trying to explain "spiritual events" (code for mythology and fantasy) with any model of thought; materialistic, dialectical, outright crazy.....

Mythological accounts of history generally contain far more intellectually interesting knowledge and reveal a great deal more about the nature of the people they belong to than the modern historical accounts.

So what?

Like all historical stories, mythological or otherwise, we will adapt them socially in accordance with the common practises of the era.

Is that ultimately dangerous?

Only when the adaption of these stories is on the tail end of deception, violence, coercion and the ultimate lie:

There is a sky fairy looking down on us that relieves us of any social responsibility.

Which is of course consistent with how we have adapted superstition in every known age.

This being the case, the only practical and logical thing to do is to toss that heap of cloud fairy junk onto the scrap heap and try again.

[BoogyMan]

The name "Jesus" is not an Aramaic name. Also, for those that think Jesus was a carpenter, he was not. He was actually a stone worker, or what you would refer to as a stone mason.


Call him "Jesus", Yeshua Ben Yousef, or even Laddie the Little Leprechaun for all I care it it will not change the fact that we all know who I was talking about and the fact that outside of the bible there is no evidence for any person that the bible refers to as "Jesus".

I guess the writings of Josephus are to be completely ignored in your "no evidence" argument, eh Bill?

[Bill Shatner]

I guess the writings of Josephus are to be completely ignored in your "no evidence" argument, eh Bill?


You mean the writings that have been proven to be forgeries for centuries?

:shock:

Do you also believe in the "burial box of James" - another proven forgery?

[moses2792796]

The name "Jesus" is not an Aramaic name. Also, for those that think Jesus was a carpenter, he was not. He was actually a stone worker, or what you would refer to as a stone mason.


Call him "Jesus", Yeshua Ben Yousef, or even Laddie the Little Leprechaun for all I care it it will not change the fact that we all know who I was talking about and the fact that outside of the bible there is no evidence for any person that the bible refers to as "Jesus".

He simply is a figure of mythology and nothing more. Period.

I think some are missing PatrickHenry's point. The materialistic historical view will never adequetely explain spiritual events.

Why bother trying to explain "spiritual events" (code for mythology and fantasy) with any model of thought; materialistic, dialectical, outright crazy.....

Mythological accounts of history generally contain far more intellectually interesting knowledge and reveal a great deal more about the nature of the people they belong to than the modern historical accounts.

So what?

Like all historical stories, mythological or otherwise, we will adapt them socially in accordance with the common practises of the era.

Is that ultimately dangerous?

Only when the adaption of these stories is on the tail end of deception, violence, coercion and the ultimate lie:

There is a sky fairy looking down on us that relieves us of any social responsibility.

Which is of course consistent with how we have adapted superstition in every known age.

This being the case, the only practical and logical thing to do is to toss that heap of cloud fairy junk onto the scrap heap and try again.


http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10320

[Bill Shatner]

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10320


Thanks but no thanks jack.

I've already had the displeasure of reading that nonsense when you spammed it in a few other forums.

I actually think I lost a few IQ points when I read it.

[BoogyMan]

I guess the writings of Josephus are to be completely ignored in your "no evidence" argument, eh Bill?


You mean the writings that have been proven to be forgeries for centuries?

:shock:

Do you also believe in the "burial box of James" - another proven forgery?


Show me where Josephus was proven a forgery Bill, make it definitive.

[Bill Shatner]

Show me where Josephus was proven a forgery Bill, make it definitive.


If you don't think that someone who was born several years after the mythical figure of Jesus allegedly croaked would not have concocted such absurd accounts then I can't help you.

I will however toss you a few bones just because it only took me a few seconds to dig these up:

http://www.bookrags.com/research/josephus-flavius-eorl-07/

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D0DE5DD143EE73BBC4C52DFB5668383669FDE&oref=slogin

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

http://www.skepticfiles.org/moretext/josephus.htm

http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_forgerychristianity25.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=2-wPGhBskwgC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=josephus+forgeries&source=web&ots=mY2H4Wrguf&sig=fIJm1zuvdBP19n7ICWU5TN0Z1cU

[BoogyMan]

Show me where Josephus was proven a forgery Bill, make it definitive.


If you don't think that someone who was born several years after the mythical figure of Jesus allegedly croaked would not have concocted such absurd accounts then I can't help you.

I will however toss you a few bones just because it only took me a few seconds to dig these up:

http://www.bookrags.com/research/josephus-flavius-eorl-07/

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D0DE5DD143EE73BBC4C52DFB5668383669FDE&oref=slogin

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

http://www.skepticfiles.org/moretext/josephus.htm

http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_forgerychristianity25.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=2-wPGhBskwgC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=josephus+forgeries&source=web&ots=mY2H4Wrguf&sig=fIJm1zuvdBP19n7ICWU5TN0Z1cU


I asked for definitive proof and you post the same old tired unsubstantiated garbage that the anti-religion crowd has been tossing around for years. I have most of these already in my library here at home and what is the most comical about them is that the prove nothing and make statements like "these are obviously forgeries" but never provide and evidence to backup those claims. Most of your sources start out assuming the falsehood of the document and build their arguments on that assumption Bill.

Egads.......

[Bill Shatner]

I asked for definitive proof and you post the same old tired unsubstantiated garbage that the anti-religion crowd has been tossing around for years. I have most of these already in my library here at home and what is the most comical about them is that the prove nothing and make statements like "these are obviously forgeries" but never provide and evidence to backup those claims. Most of your sources start out assuming the falsehood of the document and build their arguments on that assumption Bill.

Egads.......


Well jack, since we don't have a time machine to go back into time and grab little old Flavius himself so he can tell you in person that these transliterations of his words are trumped up piles of crapola then I guess we're going to have to settle with logical interpretations of mythological accounts based on scientific method.

You can now go back to plugging your ears while wailing "Onward Christian Soldiers"...

[BoogyMan]

Well jack, since we don't have a time machine to go back into time and grab little old Flavius himself so he can tell you in person that these transliterations of his words are trumped up piles of crapola then I guess we're going to have to settle with logical interpretations of mythological accounts based on scientific method.

You can now go back to plugging your ears while wailing "Onward Christian Soldiers"...


At least you admit your bias and your stand based solely on that bias, jack. :)

[Bill Shatner]

At least you admit your bias and your stand based solely on that bias, jack. :)


Well if by "bias" you mean scientific evidence then I'm guilty as charged esse.

[underdawg]

I would think that there would be more people writing history other than just one person named Josephus outside of the Bible. It certainly gives me more reason to doubt that he even existed. I always sorta assumed that Jesus was documented by many other sourses other than the Bible.

[Ralph]

Another secular point of view again makes clear that they can not see the "forest" because they are to busy looking at the "trees", as they take what is spiritual and "symbolic" and try to place a measure upon it in secular terminology.

Matthew explains that after Jesus' birth in BETHLEHEM (fulfilling the prophecy in Micah 5:2), his family fled to Egypt to avoid the killing of infants by Herod the Great (fulfilling the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:15). After Herod died, God told the family to return (fulfilling the prophecy in Hosea 11:1). The answer to the supposed "dilemma" can be found in John 8:52, ".......,Art thou also of Galilee?".

Galilee had a poor reputation, as being worthless, Galilee was where Jesus spent some of His childhood. The Hebrew word netzer, form which Nazareth is derived, refers to small twigs or branches that are worthless, such was deemed an appropriate name for a small village of little use and worth. There are in fact several prophecies dealing with people despising the Messiah (Isaiah 53:2-3 and Ps.22:6) for coming from a worthless place, the Messiah's coming from a despised area was foretold in Isaiah 9:1-2. Matthew is simply pointing out that this worthless part of the world or Nazareth in which Jesus at one time lived is laying the foundation for Jesus' rejection by some that considered such a place as unworthy for any Massiah to have come from. (John 8:52).

The Messiah was to be called one that is or came from a "BRANCH", Isaiah 11:1. Some people confuse terms used in the Old Testament in Hebrew, with those of the New Testament recorded in Greek. Such as Nazarine and Nazirite. Jesus was a Nazarene because of the area which he at one time lived was considered, a small worthless, brach or twig. The gospel writers were pointing out that fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy as Jesus being from an area (Galilee) that was considered such a worthless branch or twig of society. The point is "moot" as to when the area was named as such and by whom because it was foretold long before anyone could consider such, as was pointed out in the Old Testament prophecies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

[Bill Shatner]

I would think that there would be more people writing history other than just one person named Josephus outside of the Bible. It certainly gives me more reason to doubt that he even existed. I always sorta assumed that Jesus was documented by many other sourses other than the Bible.


Especially when the only "source" wasn't even born until several years after Christ allegedly became worm food.

The myth of Christ is the best snake oil that any grifter has ever sold.

[passinby]

The name "Jesus" is not an Aramaic name. Also, for those that think Jesus was a carpenter, he was not. He was actually a stone worker, or what you would refer to as a stone mason.


Call him "Jesus", Yeshua Ben Yousef, or even Laddie the Little Leprechaun for all I care it it will not change the fact that we all know who I was talking about and the fact that outside of the bible there is no evidence for any person that the bible refers to as "Jesus".

He simply is a figure of mythology and nothing more. Period.

I think some are missing PatrickHenry's point. The materialistic historical view will never adequetely explain spiritual events.

Why bother trying to explain "spiritual events" (code for mythology and fantasy) with any model of thought; materialistic, dialectical, outright crazy.....

Mythological accounts of history generally contain far more intellectually interesting knowledge and reveal a great deal more about the nature of the people they belong to than the modern historical accounts.

So what?

Like all historical stories, mythological or otherwise, we will adapt them socially in accordance with the common practises of the era.

Is that ultimately dangerous?

Only when the adaption of these stories is on the tail end of deception, violence, coercion and the ultimate lie:

There is a sky fairy looking down on us that relieves us of any social responsibility.

Which is of course consistent with how we have adapted superstition in every known age.

This being the case, the only practical and logical thing to do is to toss that heap of cloud fairy junk onto the scrap heap and try again.


http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10320


"A life can change in the blink of an eye, but sometimes it takes years to blink." John Michael Weber from "From Junk to Jesus, In the Blink of an Eye."

[Easy90]

Whom so ever shall show the logical debunking of Christianity will always fail to convince the faithful, because when it comes down to the final word....the faithful will always play the "Magic" card. LOL! So it is written...so shall it be. :lmao:

When logic is refuted by saying "it's magic!" the debate is over.

[December]

Or, the actual birthpalce of Jesus doesn't exist, because he never existed.

I know how much you like this sort of thing, so you should watch this: http://zeitgeistmovie.com

It explains a lot of how the Christian religion came about in the first part, and goes on to a lot of other things.


Thank you for the link.