posted August 10, 2006 03:15 PM         

>>>So I assume you are speaking of another Jesus..(there were many)

"Jesus of Palestine." This character was a Jewish extremist supported by the Zealots and ideologically inspired by the Zaddakim, the extremist cult on the Dead Sea whose doctrines provided the kernal for the Christian salvationist program that dominates the world today. In all likelihood, Jesus of Palestine was a terrorist, or at the very least, he was protected and championed by terrorists, the Zealots.
Jesus of Palestine Proposed term for an historical character who lived in the first Century CE, distinguished from Jesus of Nazareth, the character portrayed in the Gospels of the New Testament.
http://www.metahistory.org/lexicon_J.php

posted August 11, 2006 02:55 PM         

So I assume you are speaking of another Jesus

I am not speaking of any Jesuses, Fayte...

But I think it is pretty obvious that the authors of the site are (or believe they are) referring to Jesus of Nazareth, even if they do have their facts wrong.
So, there is no need to make any flippant assumptions.

posted August 11, 2006 03:35 PM         

WTF??????
Quote:
I am not speaking of any Jesuses, Fayte...

But I think it is pretty obvious that the authors of the site are (or believe they are) referring to Jesus of Nazareth, even if they do have their facts wrong.
So, there is no need to make any flippant assumptions.

>>>>I was NOT BEING FLIPPANT!!!!!!
I WAS NOT MAKING ANY ASSUMPTIONS!!!!!
GEEEZ!!!!!!!

I have studied about the various ones called Jesus, Jesus of Sirach and many many more. Then there are stories of the 16 crucified saviours and other stories that relate to men by that name who were not Jesus of Nazareth or Galilee.

MY QUESTION WAS TOTALLY A SCHOLARLY QUESTION!

I thought your topic fasinating as I had NOT read much on that particular one.

SO...
YOU SHOULD NOT ASSUME I AM BEING FLIPPANT when I WAS NOT!

YOU are making assumptions about me again!
Yes I am spikey because I do not appreciate being falsely accused.
I was not doing the things you just accused me of.
Later.
I do not appreciate being told off for something I was NOT doing.

AND....YOU WERE speaking of a "Jesus"...

GEEEZ!
Just not Jesus of Nazareth but..
"Jesus of Palestine Proposed term for an historical character who lived in the first Century CE, distinguished from Jesus of Nazareth, the character portrayed in the Gospels of the New Testament.".

I just wanted to be sure I was referring to the correct subject.

posted August 11, 2006 05:29 PM         

btw Fayte, its best, when you copy and paste text from another website, to put a link to that site so we know if its not your own work, and can see what else that other author has to say......
http://www.metahistory.org/lexicon_J.php

posted August 11, 2006 05:40 PM         

quote:

---

Then there are stories of the 16 crucified saviours and other stories that relate to men by that name who were not Jesus of Nazareth or Galilee.

---

Also, if you want a saviour god who died so our sins could be forgiven, take your pick from the ancient world because there are a stream of them.... Here are just some of the "son of God" heroes who play the role in stories which mirror those attributes to Jesus and almost all were worshipped long before Jesus was even heard of:

Krishna of Hindostan; Budda Sakia of India; Salivahana of Bermuda; Osiris and Horus of Egypt; odin of Scaninavia; Crite of Chaldea; Zoroater of Persia; Baal and Taut of Phoenicia; Indria of Tibet; Alcides of Thebes; Hesus or Eros; Cadmus of Greece; Divine teacher of Plato; Fohi and Tien of China; Mohammed or Mahomet, of Arabia

All but a few of those "sons of God" or "prophets", and the mind-prison religions founded in their names, came from the very lands occupied or influenced by peoples emerging from the Near East and the Caucasus. Other "sons of God" included Mithra or Mithras, the pre-Christian Roman Persian god, and in Greece and Asia Minor they had Dionysus and Bacchus. These were sons of God who died so our sins could be forgiven, born of virgin mother and their Birthdays were on..... Hmmm... yeah... December 25th! (LOL) Mithra was crucified, but raised from the dead on March 25th--Easter! Mithran initiations took place in caves adorned with the signs of Capricorn and Cancer, symbolic of the winter and summer solstices, the high and low points of the sun. Mithra was often portrayed as a winged lion, a symbol of the sun still used by secret societes today.

Mithra was said to be the son (Sun) of God who died to save humanity and give them eternal life. One classic symbol of Mithra was a lion with a snake curled around his body, while he holds the keys to heaven. This is more Nimrod symbolism and the orgin of the story of St.Peter, one of Jesus' 12 disciples, holding the keys to heaven.

Rant over!
Cheers

posted August 11, 2006 06:53 PM         

Maybe this is a grammatical misunderstanding. Were you speculating on who the authors of the website THOUGHT they were referring to, or, who you think may have lived during those dates, by the name of "Jesus" (unbeknownst to the authors of the website)? Because your words suggest the possibility of either interpretation. Perhaps it was rash of me to assume that you were referring to the author's intentions, in an ironic, tongue-in-cheek way. If that is what you were doing, the word for that is "flippant". If that is not what you were doing, my apologies. The way you worded it was confusing to me.

I WAS NOT MAKING ANY ASSUMPTIONS!!!!!

Didn't you just say:
I assume you are speaking of another Jesus.

posted August 11, 2006 06:53 PM         

I do not know you, and I will add this: in my post I was using Mithras as another example of the so many crucified and born of a Virgin birth. I did not intend to state that Mithras was the original. I may be mistaken, but to my recollection, in reading some of your posts, you are religious and maybe my examples upset you!In essence, I am not sure if it's good to keep ranting with you on these matters as they may be inconsequential in your part... do you know what I mean (i.e. it would be impossible to have this type of conversation with my grandfather who is a Mormon or my father who is Catholic? or anyone who is highly Religious) However, if I am wrong with what I just stated, then I would be more than glad to keep ranting with you!

Cheers,

posted August 11, 2006 07:13 PM         

quote:

---

That's such a terribly old and, sadly, more and more common opinion, silverstone, don't you agree?

---

Sorry you missed the point of using Mithras as an example... you missed my example in using him (Mithras)as a reference to establish my intention... Not to mention you made assumptions...

quote:

---

If so, I assume you are willing to admit the reality and authenticity of Mithras? And if you are willing to concede this, then I will further assume that you have the courage of your convictions and are a card carrying member of your local Mithras cult?

---

Also:

quote:

---

It's just another example of the unclear, illogical thought processes so rampant today.

---

I do not mean to pass judjement on you but with respect who DO you think you are by stating I am illogical! You don't even know me! (several times I may be in a rush writing as my time is very limited and perhaps I do not embellish to expand and explain the simplicity as I would like... but that sure as hell does not mean I am illogical!)

Cheers,

posted August 11, 2006 07:15 PM         

I thought you were being flippant, because the link spoke of "Jesus", and did not specify which Jesus. So, if they were not referring to the Jesus that just happens to be the most famous person who ever lived, and whose name is repeated billions of times a day, all over the world, without the specification "of Nazareth" or "Christ", - but, were instead referring to some obscure teacher of the 1st century, by the same first name, - I am SURE they would have said so. And so would I.

THIS is a reasonable assumption to make.

But, to assume otherwise is unlikely, at best, and, pressumably, you were not sincere in your assumption, but were trying to make the authors of the website (or anyone who would support them) blush, by suggesting that they must have another Jesus in mind.

I think it is clear that they at least THOUGHT these dates refer to Jesus of Nazareth, since they did not specify another Jesus. Otherwise, they would have been very clear about that fact.

For the record, if ever I mention "Jesus", without specifying which Jesus I am talking about, you can safely assume that I am NOT referring to "Jesus of Palestine", or some other obscure figure, whom I would be sure to introduce the reader to, before speculating about his other possible incarnations.

posted August 11, 2006 08:52 PM         

Petron...that was uncalled for and weird. HSC was not crucifying me. And I am not your sacastically named by you, FOL. And a joker/jester? Disagreements and misunderstandings are not funny. Why you take such delight in such is not very nice. But I am glad it brought you such pleasure. Thanks for reminding me of the link. It has been added.
I had to Google it too.
That was why I was curious about the subject HSC brought up.

HSC...I thought the authors were confused too.

Just like some folks think there was only one Buddha, or one king Herod etcetera.
My use of the word assume was not the right word perhaps to use. I should have said...."I think you are..." or "am I correct, you are speaking of a person named Jesus the authors are trying to claim was Jesus of Nazareth?".
Did not think it would cause such confusion.

I do not agree with the authors of either site.
I do not think you do either. Or am I assuming again?
PS. The last line was flippant or sarcastic.

posted August 11, 2006 09:22 PM         

>>>>HSC...
Quote:
I thought you were being flippant, because the link spoke of "Jesus", and did not specify which Jesus. So, if they were not referring to the Jesus that just happens to be the most famous person who ever lived, and whose name is repeated billions of times a day, all over the world, without the specification "of Nazareth" or "Christ", - but, were instead referring to some obscure teacher of the 1st century, by the same first name, - I am SURE they would have said so. And so would I.

>>>Actually they seem, to be mixing two together.

QUOTE from your link:

"The Disciple Jesus (24 BC to 9 AD), who is now the Master Jesus, was born in Palestine as a third-degree initiate.

>>>Ok that bit could not be the Jesus you often speak of. The dates are not right.

QUOTE from your link:

When He went out of incarnation at the Crucifixion,

>>>>But there(by mentioning crucifixion) they seem to be referring to the Jesus you speak often of.

But then they have him reincarnating, which adds another element of confusion to their version of events.

posted August 11, 2006 09:33 PM         

Yes, I did make assumptions, based on your post, and clearly stated so in an attempt to point out what seems to me as more than a few holes in the story. Horrors! Does this qualify me for a good tar and feathering?

I did not state that you were an illogical person. I stated that the aforementioned theory was illogical. But since you mentioned it, while I might not catagorize your reply as illogical I might very well consider it a tad on the unnecessarily defensive and reactionary side.

posted August 11, 2006 11:52 PM         

Sorry I jumped to conclusions.
I thought you were saying something else.

No, I dont take any position on it,
I just thought it was kind of interesting.

For the most part,
I'm not really into history at all,
but I thought some people might dig it,
and wish to investigate it or something.

I've said it before,
and I'll say it again:
Facts bore me.
Give me Truths.

"Read not the times,
Read the eternities."
- Thoreau

Love to you,
Sorry I wigged,

HSC

posted August 12, 2006 12:05 AM         

Again, I was using Mithras as a reference to establish my point.

I won't keep elaborating on it more, as I believe you got my point

Cheers,

posted August 12, 2006 12:15 AM         

quote:

---

...I very often find disagreements and misunderstandings to be funny. So many of them are just silly, not to mention inconsequential. How could you not help but laugh?

---

I feel the same! Although "we" all learn from them even when you can't help yourself but laugh and when we are the first to disagree!

quote:

---

If Christ's birth is nothing more than a retelling of the story of Mithras' birth, what was Mithras' birth based on?

---

Think about that! And remember I said this: "in my post I was using Mithras as another example of the so many crucified and born of a Virgin birth. I did not intend to state that Mithras was the original."

Happy thoughts,

posted August 12, 2006 03:19 AM         

------------------
How many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?

Yes, 'n how many years can some people exist
Before theyre allowed to be free?

Yes, 'n how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesnt see?

The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind,
The answer is blowin in the wind.