Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. - flavius josephus-
Sadly, many people use this passage as independent verification of Jesus' existence when it has been widely proven that Flavius Josephus' works have been tampered with by Christians after the establishment of Christianity as the new religion of Rome. For more information, see here:
Reference To Jesus Chris:
I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be ignored without examination, so that these men may not be harassed, nor an opportunity given for malicious proceedings to be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly show their charges against these Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not just petitions, and mere outcries against Christians. For it is more fitting, if any one brings an accusation, that you should examine it. - Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV
Conclusion
This reference reveals several key things:
1) Christians existed during the reign of Hadrian. 2) Christians were in conflict with society. 3) They followed Christ.
Huh? I do not see anywhere in that passage that Jesus Christ existed ... . Just that the Christians were persecuted, which is a known fact. Following Christ as a figure is one thing ... proving that he exists is another.
Quote:
Lucian of Samosata lived A.D. 120-180. He was a satirist who was scornful of Christians. He wrote several books: The Passing Peregrinus and Alexander the False Prophet.
Reference To Jesus Christ
The Christians. . . worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt for death and self devotion . . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith . . . - The Passing Peregrinus
Sadly, Lucian is another example of where Christians like to say that independent verification of Jesus' existence is proven. This is false. Lucian, for one, was born well after Jesus, myth or real, was dead. That in itself proves that he cannot have written about Jesus during his time. Further, it just proves that Christians at the time believed and worshipped a man named Jesus the Christ, which no one is denying. Again, worshipping a figure is one thing, proving he exists is another.
Quote:
Oh, BTW, I have more proof if you need it. If some of the words are too bit for you to understand, I will be more than happy to explain them to you. As far as you ignorant comments, Mark Twain wrote: " It's better to be silent and let people think you're a fool than to open YOUR mouth and remove all doubt."
Speak for yourself. If I were you, I'd follow your own advice. Oh, and personal attacks are frowned upon in intellectual discourse, but you knew that, right?
More importantly to my point of wanting proof that Jesus existed is that there is not one single shred of evidence that Jesus ever lived - either cited in books PROVEN to not be tampered with (admittedly this is tough, since the Dark Ages and the adoption of Christianity as the de facto religion of Rome saw many classic texts altered), nor any physical proof that he ever existed (the Shroud of Turin has been proven to be no older than 300 years), and there isn't even a drawing of him.
You would think that the savior of mankind, son of God, and a person who can perform miracles at will would have had EVERYONE in the ancient world talking about him. But far from it. Even assuming that the other sources you have are not fabricated or altered to the whims of the newly formed establishment of ancient Rome or the Popes thereafter, fit to their desires, then even if they are not false then there's so little evidence of such a man existing you would have thought it was just a coincidence of fictional writing. Stranger things have happened - just as multiple scientists and mathematicians have, in the past, independently come up with their own identical solutions to problems of the time.
Sadly, many people use this passage as independent verification of Jesus' existence when it has been widely proven that Flavius Josephus' works have been tampered with by Christians after the establishment of Christianity as the new religion of Rome. For more information, see here:
Huh? I do not see anywhere in that passage that Jesus Christ existed ... . Just that the Christians were persecuted, which is a known fact. Following Christ as a figure is one thing ... proving that he exists is another.
Sadly, Lucian is another example of where Christians like to say that independent verification of Jesus' existence is proven. This is false. Lucian, for one, was born well after Jesus, myth or real, was dead. That in itself proves that he cannot have written about Jesus during his time. Further, it just proves that Christians at the time believed and worshipped a man named Jesus the Christ, which no one is denying. Again, worshipping a figure is one thing, proving he exists is another.
Speak for yourself. If I were you, I'd follow your own advice. Oh, and personal attacks are frowned upon in intellectual discourse, but you knew that, right?
More importantly to my point of wanting proof that Jesus existed is that there is not one single shred of evidence that Jesus ever lived - either cited in books PROVEN to not be tampered with (admittedly this is tough, since the Dark Ages and the adoption of Christianity as the de facto religion of Rome saw many classic texts altered), nor any physical proof that he ever existed (the Shroud of Turin has been proven to be no older than 300 years), and there isn't even a drawing of him.
You would think that the savior of mankind, son of God, and a person who can perform miracles at will would have had EVERYONE in the ancient world talking about him. But far from it. Even assuming that the other sources you have are not fabricated or altered to the whims of the newly formed establishment of ancient Rome or the Popes thereafter, fit to their desires, then even if they are not false then there's so little evidence of such a man existing you would have thought it was just a coincidence of fictional writing. Stranger things have happened - just as multiple scientists and mathematicians have, in the past, independently come up with their own identical solutions to problems of the time.
LMAO
Huh? I do not see anywhere in that passage that Jesus Christ existed ... . Just that the Christians were persecuted, which is a known fact. Following Christ as a figure is one thing ... proving that he exists is another.
"Christian....those who follow Christ." All of these are legit text. How can u follow what as u say never was? If Jesus never was, why are they called Christians?
All of these are legit text. How can u follow what as u say never was? If Jesus never was, why are they called Christians?
People followed Zeus, Apollo, Athena and Aphrodite, therefore they must all exist. People followed Zoroaster (they are called Zoroatrians) therefore Zoroaster must be real. People follow Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, therefore they must exist. Allah must be real too. And that goes for Numu Ahpa for us Comanches. This is what your "logic" says.
There is ample evidence that the writings of Josephus were tampered with by Eusebius of Antioch BTW.
LMAO
Huh? I do not see anywhere in that passage that Jesus Christ existed ... . Just that the Christians were persecuted, which is a known fact. Following Christ as a figure is one thing ... proving that he exists is another.
"Christian....those who follow Christ." All of these are legit text. How can u follow what as u say never was? If Jesus never was, why are they called Christians?
They're called "Christians" because it is derived from the Greek word "Christos" or "the anointed one." So being called a Christian is basically nothing more than saying you are an anointed one who follows a person named Jesus, who so far as I can tell, never existed.
I find it convenient that you didn't bother disproving my other points.
If in case this is hard to swallow, try this out, look at the attributes below, and think about what comes to mind. I'll point out what it shows me, and can be verified in historical texts and numerous references:
Born of a virgin woman
Killed / crucified, died, ascended into heaven (either bodily or spiritually) 3 days after death
3rd day after dying is when resurrection took place
Performed many miracles when alive
Is commonly referred to as the Son of God or the Sun God or what have you
Had 12 desciples.
Ready? These traits are shared among Horus, the Sun God of Egypt, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra and Jesus Christ.
In fact, when Christianity was spreading, some tribes were skeptical over the "new god" but found it easier to swallow when it was compared to previously accepted Roman and Greek gods of the time, since the mystic stories were nearly identical.
The ancient people were no idiots, and found inventive ways to explain the meaning of the strange universe around them. It's no wonder that people were skeptical of change, since many of the roots of ancient mysticism is in fact rooted in math and observation.
The death and resurrection in 3 days, for example. There is a reason why so many religions use the days around Christmas (25th of December) as a means of "resurrection" or returning from the dead. Imagine you're an ancient person. Life is hard, death is everywhere from famine, disease, and war and just plain bad luck. Now imagine that it's winter time. You look towards any hope of the new harvest and better times.
Then you hear a story about a death and resurrection around December 25th. That makes total sense because from 22nd to 25th of December, from certain meridians, the sun reaches the lowest point in the sky and does not visibly move for 3 days. Then it moves higher in the sky, promising a return to spring and a bountiful harvest.
Thus, in essence, worshipping Jesus Christ is basically the same as worshipping Horus, the Sun God, or the Sun itself.
Or it means you worship the math and observations and science behind the mysticism. Glad to know we have common ground! It's just our expression of that which is different.
Now there's nothing wrong with that per se. At least Christianity puts forth a codex for living a healthy life (a couple of the commandments are troublesome but when you think about it they are all common sense).
Need I go on?
Last edited by eskercurve; 06-03-2009 at 08:18 PM..
First - it's Numunu not Nermenuh, but that's some mighty fine copy and pasting you did there. BTW, the writer of that post you pasted got that info from T.R. Fehrenbach's book "Comanches". Fehrenbach is NOT Comanche (or even NDN), so what does he know?
Second - Comanche belief is hardly coherent in any way. We were the original skeptics of the plains. Belief ranged widely among bands and individuals. We do not have a lot of rituals and traditionally frown on pubic displays of spirituality. We also tend to kept our beliefs to ourselves. That being said, the scalping, strangulation, dark statements are true, though it resulted in annihilation or becoming a ghost. So is the statement about the afterlife being open to all. There is neither reward for virtue or punishment for sin. "Happy Hunting Grounds" indeed. Anymore cliches you'd like to throw out, Kemosabe? Sheez.
Third - My Uncle (Coffey) is our current tribal chairman; my grandfather (Kerchee) and great-uncle (Blackstar) were traditional Comanche elders (they've both passed). I listened to them and not some anthropologist, historian or missionary. I think I know a little more about our people than some book or YOU.
Fourth - I know that not all taibos (white people) are the same. Hell, I married one.
Fifth - How the word "Indian" came about is disputed. Some say Columbus thought he was in India; some say Columbus stated that the people he met were En Dios and was later bastardized to Indios. Doesn't really matter. The only people who seem to get bent out of shape about the word are Urban Indians, thin-bloods, and wannabes. It doesn't bother me or most people from the tribe.
Sixth - There is no Flood story among our people. I asked both Grandfather and great-uncle about that as I had heard this said before. They both said no. End of story.
Lastly - If you wish to follow the Christian god, then that is your business. I don't know what nation you are from or if you are even enrolled (nor do I really care), but do not presume to tell me about traditional Comanche beliefs. I don't like it when other NDNs do it either.
"Christian Indians make me laugh." - Jack Malotte (western Shoshone) 1995
Excellent post. Like native japanese (shinto beliefs etc) most native americans beliefs are similar. Being close to the land etc basically completely different from christianity. Neither of our cultures have a story about a flood either (even if we did, how could we have a story if we supposivly all died?). It's sad how europeans and christians still push their beliefs on native americans who have already been through alot, and still have "christians" talking lies on their behalf as if they were native american experts.
Christians were for the most part responsible for the genocide against the native americans (after the diseases). So it's ridiculous they are using native americans for their arguments.
with the possibilities of refined thinking, i would prefer to differentiate between christians and people simply never fully understanding their religion.
with the possibilities of refined thinking, i would prefer to differentiate between christians and people simply never fully understanding their religion.
+1
Very insightful. Many people who claim to be Christian are not at all and do not live their values.
And the mythological Jesus is alleged to have said that he came not to replace the old laws. So one can have an edifying time reading Leviticus, among other parts of the OT, and find out what being a Christian really means. Of course most Christians simply ignore this, preferring to promote the 'Prince of Peace' idea. That is, until the subject turns to unbelievers and what happens to them.
LMAO
Huh? I do not see anywhere in that passage that Jesus Christ existed ... . Just that the Christians were persecuted, which is a known fact. Following Christ as a figure is one thing ... proving that he exists is another.
"Christian....those who follow Christ." All of these are legit text. How can u follow what as u say never was? If Jesus never was, why are they called Christians?
For those non christians who follow others, say Mohammed, does this prove that they are wrong? For those that follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with the same proof as your alleged jesus, prove them wrong.
Just because someone follows an ideal based on a mythilogical figure does not make that figure real.
Wow, you would truly believe anything? I'm curious, if god spoke directly to you and commanded you to kill someone, would you follow?
The God of the Bible is not the Author of confusion, and we are now living in the age of Grace. If I heard a voice speak to me telling me to kill someone, that would not be the God I follow, but an imposter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
