Historicity of Jesus - 2

[dhu]

[url="http://www.google.com/search?q=Herodotus%2C+and+the+Parsis+at+Thermopylae&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a"]Herodotus, and the Parsis at Thermopylae[/url]

Sunday, January 31, 2010

By Aakar Patel



Just a warning.. This fellow is a major sepoy.

[HareKrishna]

The DSS vs Masoret Text vs Samaritan vs Septuagint vs Aramaic - which is right???



There are a number of anti-missionaries like Toviah Singer who have accused followers of Y'shua of altering texts that prophecy of the Messiah. But the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as some other manuscripts, indiciate that it was the Masorets who changed the Tanakh so as to discredit the Nazarene movement. The following is a comparison of the Masoret texts with some of the other manuscripts that proves the point that it was the Masorets who changed things.

http://home.comcast.net/~jovial/learn/mc...rsions.htm

[dhu]

One reason I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible is that it uses the Hebrew names for God -- 'Yahweh', 'El Shaddai', 'Elohim' and 'Adonai.' This usage helps to explain the curious verses found in other bibles, like this one from the RSV ...



"I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." (Ex 6:2-3)



The NJB has, "I am Yahweh. To Abraham, Isaac and Jacob I appeared as El Shaddai, but I did not make my name Yahweh known to them."



A footnote in the NJB says 'El Shaddai' probably means 'God of the Mountain' or 'God of the open wastes'. And Karen Armstrong, being a feminist, prefers 'many-breasted God.' But it doesn't mean 'God Almighty.'



In the RSV, you also sometimes find 'LORD' and 'Lord' in the same verse, a translation that is ridiculous and confusing.

[dhu]

Came across this comment:

Invade nation. Bomb to hell for 7 yrs. Kill lakhs. Make complex sensitive movie about the experience. Celebrate with moving awards show.

I believe it's a reference to the snubbing of Avatar by the Oscarwalas and the strained and desperate promotion of the US-Iraq war propaganda film The Hurt Locker.



We're not always visited with a frankenstein outcome - sometimes, the master himself will turn against his creation, probably when the creation loses its intelligibility as a vaguely concocted humiliation narration and the natives usurp it as their own for their own 'purposes'.



Now, what if Arianism/Islam was a similar event to the promotion of Locker... that would explain the loss of propaganda flexibility seen with Islam, as well as the singularity of the Arian doctrine. The "complex sensitivity" of Islam is solely visible to the mughlai conneouuuiseur, nawab, shayriwala, and effete secularatti; to the common believer, Islam is something quite different..

[ramana]

Now that Bush is gone its passe to promote the war with the new leadership at the helm.

[dhu]

from a chinese subforum:

[ramana]

Book Review:

The Gospel Of Matthew In Its Roman Imperial Context By John Riches, David C. Sim

Publisher: T. & T. Clark Publishers 2005 | 202 Pages | ISBN: 0567084485







In what sense does Matthew's Gospel reflect the colonial situation in which the community found itself after the fall of Jerusalem, and the subsequent humiliation of Jews across the Roman Empire? To what extent was Matthew seeking to oppose Rome's claims to authority and sovereignty over the whole world, to set up alternative systems of power and society, to forge new senses of identity? If Matthew's community felt itself to be living on the margins of society, where did it see the centre as lying? In Judaism or in Rome? And how did Matthew's approach to such problems compare with that of Jews who were not followers of Jesus Christ, and with that of others -, Jews and Gentiles -, who were followers?



About the Author

John Riches was formerly Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow. David Sim is Professor of New Testament Studies, Australian Catholic University, and author of The Gospel of Matthew and Judaism.

[dhu]

In the Early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the word “Son” is not actually used but Jesus is called “Eved” which means Servant or Slave.



And the word used in The Holy Qur’aan for Jesus is Abdullah which exactly means Servant of God.



19:29 Thereupon she pointed to him. They exclaimed: “How can we talk to one who [as yet] is a little boy in the cradle?”

19:30 [But] he said:”Behold, I am a servant of God. He has vouchsafed unto me revelation and made me a prophet,

19:31 and made me blessed wherever I may be; and He has enjoined upon me prayer and charity as long as I live,

19:32 and [has endowed me with] piety towards my mother; and He has not made me haughty or bereft of grace.

19:33 “Hence, peace was upon me on the day when I was born, and [will be upon me] on the day of my death(after his second coming), and on the day when I shall be raised to life [again]!”

19:34 SUCH WAS, in the words of truth, Jesus the son of Mary, about whose nature they so deeply disagree. [25]

19:35 It is not conceivable that God should have taken unto Himself a son: limitless is He in His glory! [26] When He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it “Be” -and it is!

19:36 And [thus it was that Jesus always said]: “Verily, God is my Sustainer as well as your Sustainer; so worship [none but] Him: this (alone] is a straight way.”

19:37 And yet, the sects [that follow the Bible] are at variance among themselves [about the nature of Jesus Woe, then, unto all who deny the truth when that awesome Day will appear!

19:38 How well will they hear and see [the truth] on the Day when they come before Us! Today, however, these evildoers are obviously lost in error:

19:39 hence, warn them of [the coming of] the Day of Regrets, when everything will have been decided-for as yet they are heedless, and they do not believe [in it].



112:1 Say: He is God, the One and Only;

112:2 God, the Eternal, Absolute;

112:3 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

112:4 And there is none like unto Him.

[ramana]

So we see gradually how the ME cult/religion got transformed into a Roman/European State doctrine.

[dhu]

These fellows never fail with their twists. Now, The Hurt Locker is being touted as an anti-war:

There are other moments in the film that are blatantly anti-war. David Morse makes a bizarre cameo as a Colonel who makes a decision to let a just-wounded Iraqi civilian/suspect die for no apparent reason—implying, of course, that the field commander is a hate-filled bigot air-raiding villages and killing civilians. This is 100% incidental to the plot and only serves to prop up the anti-war agenda.

[dhu]

Vespasian and his sons, Titus and Domitian, maintained the Flavian Dynasty

from 69 - 96 CE, just the period of Josephus' tenure as their court historian, and the rise of the Christian Movement. Atwill contends that the Christian ideology and ritual practice built upon the model of Mithraism, was generated by the Flavians to offer a persuasive alternative to the numerous contentious and rebellious Jewish messianic sects constantly troublesome in Roman Palestine.[url="http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/Media/media.html#ellens"]link[/url]

[Husky]

#566 (Disney's Pocahontas rehashed as Cameron's Avatar): Classic hysterics.

So, what's the Avatar song to replace "Ben je blind voor al de kleuren van de wind?" - hmmm, I think the Engels version is "Can you paint with all the colours of the wind?" or whatever.





On #568:

(Now follows probable repetition of stuff already said)



Islamism got its idea of jeebus from some of the heretical christian sects that were kicked out of the empire into Arabia Felix, as well as from hemerobaptists, sabaeans (sp?).



True that jeebus being the son of gawd was not universally recognised even at the start. But then, most things about jeebus that are taken for granted now by the general body of christianism weren't universally recognised by the earliest christian cults at all (like corporeal form i.e. historicity, resurrection, crucifixion, jeebus' alleged divinity).



As for the particular jeebus son of gawd story and where the two main churches stand on it:

[color="#800080"](my inserts in purple)[/color]

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/c...html#jesus

Creeds are formal statements of what the Christian Church believed in. The statements are supposedly formulas that are to be ultimately derivable from the scriptures. The most important statement of Christian doctrine is contained in what is popularly known as the Nicene Creed, after the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. However, the Nicene Creed as we know it today, was not a product of that council. It more probably was developed at the Council of Constantinople in 381, and reached its final form after the Council of Chalcedon in 451.[6] The Nicene Creed is important in that it affirms the full deity of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit. Given below is the creed

THE NICENE CREED

We believe in one God, the Father All Governing, creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all time, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence as the Father, through Whom all things came into being, Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father [color="#0000FF"]and the Son[/color], Who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and Son, Who spoke through the prophets; and in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.[7]

[color="#0000FF"]With the exception of the three words given in italics, the Nicene Creed is accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches. The three words, and the Son, is what is known as the Filioque Clause ("Filioque" is Latin for "and the Son"), which, as seen in the page on [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/historical.html#schism"]historical origins[/url], was the point of contention between the Eastern and Western Churches. In its original from, the Nicene Creed does not contain the three words, they were added later by the Western Church. This interpolation was affirmed at the western council in Toledo in 589.[8] The Eastern Churches had never accepted that interpolation. The reader will note that if the doctrines in the creed can be traced to the Bible, as some Christian theologians still claim today, this issue would be easily be resolved. The reality shows that this is not the case. The doctrine of Jesus as God is not to be found in the Bible but only in the creeds. How exactly is Jesus God, as the Filioque Clause tries to define, cannot be found in the scriptures. Thus there was no solution except for the Great Schism.[/color]

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/g...#godevolve

The Evolution of the Trinity

Contrary to what most Christians believe, the Christian concept of the triune godhead did not come "pre-packaged" in the teachings of Jesus, Paul or the Bible. The New Testament contained a few vague, triadic, formulas such as that found in II Corinthians 13:13 which are often understood, anachronistically, as Trinitarian. The formulation is more properly understood as speaking of different entities that are closely related to one another. A good example would be the English phrase "fighting for king and country". The terms "king" and "country" are not synonymous but are concepts closely related to patriotism; with the former normally being viewed as the visible symbol of the latter. As the Macmillan Compendium: World Religions explains:

[E]xegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. God the Father is the source of all that is (Pantokrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ. "Father" is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God. Early liturgical and creedal formulas speak of God as "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"; praise is to be rendered to God through Christ (see opening greetings in Paul and deutero-Paul). There are other binatarian texts (e.g. Rom 4:24, 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 2:12; 1 Tm. 2:5-6, 6:13; 2 Tm. 4:1) and a few triadic texts (the strongest are 2 Cor. 13:13 and Mt. 28:19; others are 1 Cor 6:11, 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 1 Thes. 5:18-19; Gal. 3:11-14) Christ is sent by God and the spirit is sent by Christ so that all may be returned to God. [1]

The final Trinitarian formulation was the result of theological battles that were fought during the first four centuries of the Christian era.



The first battles were fought mainly in the field of Christology.



The statements regarding the nature of Christ in the New Testament were so vague that any attempt at reasoning and elaboration would lead inevitably to differences of opinions. The first attempt at an elaboration on the nature of Christ was [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/gnostic.html"]Gnosticism[/url]. Although Gnosticism was eventually wiped out as a [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/heresies.html"]"heretical"[/url] [a]sect. In the field of Christology, Gnosticism may be thought of as the first, tentative steps towards the deification of Jesus.



After Gnosticism, there were other [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/christologyother.html"]early experiments in Christology[/url]. Eventually, as a backlash against the evolving deification of Jesus, came the most famous theological battle of all, the [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/arian.html"]Arian controversy[/url]. The Arian controversy forced the issue of Jesus' divinity head on. A council was called in 325 CE to resolve the issue once and for all. Thus Jesus can be formally said to have become God in the [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/arian.html#nicaea"]council at Nicaea in 325 CE[/url].



The Arian controversy was just a foretaste of what was to come. The Athanasians (the theological rivals of the Arians-who eventually got to call themselves "orthodox") has substituted the commonsensical Arian idea with one obviously nonsensical. Yet the theological evolution was to develop even further away from common sense to absolute absurdity. The christological evolution was to culminate in a doctrine that was [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html"]completely devoid of any sense or meaning[/url].



Similar theological battles were also fought over the exact definition of the [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/holyspirit.html"]Holy Spirit[/url].



Thus was formed the monstrous three headed god of Christianity!





Back to the top

Plus good to read in entirety:

- The Core Beliefs of Christianity at http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/common.html

- Historical Background of the [color="#800080"](major, known, since paulinism)[/color] Christian Denominations at http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/historical.html

- Repeat: From Nestorianism to Monothelitism http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html, which starts and ends with

From Nestorianism to Monothelitism

The Arian controversy was just a foretaste of what was to come. The Athanasians has substituted the commonsensical Arian idea with one obviously nonsensical. Yet the theological evolution was to develop even further away from common sense to absolute absurdity. The christological evolution was to culminate in a doctrine that was completely devoid of any sense or meaning.



[url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html#nestorian"]Apollinarianism and Nestorianism[/url]

[url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html#monophysite"]Euthychianism or Monophysitism[/url]

[url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html#monothelitism"]Monothelitism[/url]

[url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html#conclude"]Conclusion[/url]

Conclusion

With the condemnation of the monophysitism and monotheletism we have reached the stage of development of Christology that is today shared by the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches. Thus was how the Christian concept of God, of the Trinity developed. The Christian concept of God is a monstrosity, an example of how nonsense can be given free reign upon the abdication of reason.



[color="#0000FF"]We found that as Christianity developed the concept of Jesus became more and more absurd and meaningless. The Nicene Creed (325) asserted that Jesus was truly God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. The first council of Constantinople (381) made the contradictory assertion that Jesus was also truly man. Hence Jesus took on two natures in Constantinople. The council in Ephesus (431) asserted that Jesus' two natures were nevertheless indivisibly one. In Chalcedon (451) it was further elaborated that although the two natures were indivisible they were also distinct. [14] Then, in Constantinople (681) the bishops decided that Jesus had two wills, but that they always coincided and acted harmoniously with each other. These formulations are absurd and devoid of any sense.[/color]



As the rationalist J.M.Robertson (1856-1933) pointed out, the Church, claiming its roots in Judaism was committed to monotheism; and yet the main attraction of Christianity to the pagan converts was the apparent divinity of Jesus, which, logically, tend to make the religion a polytheistic one. The only possible solution is to make both affirmations whenever a controversy arises. This led to [color="#0000FF"]a logically contradictory but theologically durable picture of Jesus.[/color] [15]

[color="#800080"](As heathens have ever observed since christianism's manufacture: the eternally-morphing jeebus is made morphable for a purpose: he's tailored for the audience being inculturated upon/marked for conversion and suited to the sheep to be kept in line. Hence Elton John's "Jeebus is gay".)[/color]



But each time an affirmation was made, a new aspect of christology was being added. It is obvious that the Nicene creed would have shocked even Paul, let alone the original apostles!

[color="#800080"](Neither Paul nor the apostles existed, same with jesus)[/color]

Christianity, like all social institutions evolved. As Robert Wilken, Professor of the History of Christianity of the University of Notre Dame said in his book The Myth of Christian Beginnings:

[color="#FF0000"][size="6"]There is no original Christian faith, no native language, no definitive statement of the meaning of Christ for all time...No matter how deeply we probe, how early we extend our search, we will never find an original faith. [16][/size][/color]

Back to the top



Notes

a. If the reader is beginning to feel that all these debate about concepts which already have been reduced to nonsense as ludicrous- the author is in complete agreement with him! But such is Christian theology!

b. The account of how the orthodox church broke away from the Roman church is given in the next section. It was to be the final development in christology.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/h...tml#schism

1054: The Great Schism

In 1054 a more serious break in the main branch of the Christian Church took place. The Western Church which was Latin speaking and the Eastern Church which was mainly Greek speaking never had an easy relationship. The Bishop of Rome used to claim honorary primacy over the rest of the bishops and patriarches by virtue of his residence in the capital city of the Roman Empire. But when the capital city was moved to Constantinople in the year 330, the Patriarch of Constantinople naturally assumed his office to hold primacy. This was not accepted by the Western Church. The quest for supremacy between Rome and Constantinople was to continue for many centuries.



Apart from this mainly political reason, there was also a theological one. It involves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The Western Church inserted an additional point, known as the [url="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/common.html#filioque"]Filioque Clause[/url], to one of its earlier creeds. The Eastern Church did not accept this addition. To resolve this escalating problem, the Pope sent Cardinal Humbert (d1061) to Constantinople to discuss the issue with the Eastern Patriarch Michael Cerularies (d1058). The discussions did not go well and both Humbert and Michael Cerularies ended up excommunicating[a] one another in 1054. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> The excommunications initiated the break between the Latin and Greek Churches which became known as The Great Schism. It was a large break, for unlike the earlier monophysite splinter, the Eastern Church formed a substantial part of Christendom.[2]



Back to the top.

And I quote the Greek Church: "the pope is satan!"

Look how I didn't say it. (Besides, as a heathen, I don't believe in jeebusjehovallah=satan <- they are indistinguishable because they are the same non-existent imaginary demonic character.)

[dhu]

The first attempt at an elaboration on the nature of Christ was Gnosticism. Although Gnosticism was eventually wiped out as a "heretical" [a]sect. In the field of Christology, Gnosticism may be thought of as the first, tentative steps towards the deification of Jesus.

[Husky]

Hmmm.



http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/nestorian.html

As Robert Wilken, Professor of the History of Christianity of the University of Notre Dame said in his book The Myth of Christian Beginnings:

There is no original Christian faith, no native language, no definitive statement of the meaning of Christ for all time...No matter how deeply we probe, how early we extend our search, we will never find an original faith. [16]

The above phrasing reminded me of N.S.Trubetzkoy:

It is usually supposed that, at one time, there was a single Indo-European language, the so-called Indo-European protolanguage, from which all historically attested Indo-European languages are presumed to descend. This supposition is contradicted by the fact that, no matter how far we peer back into history, we always find a multitude of Indo-European-speaking peoples. The idea of an Indo-European protolanguage is not absurd, but it is not necessary, and we can do very well without it.

[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]

I've been trying add the following as my IF sig - so I could have the coolest signature ever (even if they're not my own words) - but it won't let me:

Roman Emperor Julian (mid 4th-century) in Contra Galilaeos, his work exposing the lie that is christianism:



"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness." [color="#800080"](Galilaeans=Julian's term for christians; "fabrication of the Galilaeans" is jesus christ, hence christianism.)[/color]



"But if you can show me that one of these men [Jesus, Paul, etc.] is mentioned by the well known writers of that time, -these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius-, then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters." (Loeb Classics Translation)

Admin, is there any way to force that to be my signature?

[Guest]

A website from JesusOnline



http://y-jesus.com/jesuscomplex_1.php

http://y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php {was J a real person}



What is interesting is that some of the articles are available in Hindi, Punjabi & Urdu

[dhu]

is Taleb quoting someone else or are these his own words

nntaleb: [The biggest error since Socrates has been to believe that lack of clarity is the SOURCE of all our ills, not the result. ]

Socrates' contrarian-ness led to Monotheism..

[dhu]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhjOnYbKJJw"]OSHO: God Is Not a Solution - but a Problem (video)[/url]

[ravicv]

This is an interesting documentary which aired on the Discovery Channel on the tomb of Jesus:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHBQz6GWJAI



Herein, it is also shown/stated that the bones of the person called Peter is in a tomb in the Via Dolorosa and not in the Vatican! One wonders why this documentary is banned in India? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Husky]

[quote name='qubit' date='12 March 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1268398735' post='105127']

This is an interesting documentary which aired on the Discovery Channel on the tomb of Jesus:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHBQz6GWJAI



Herein, it is also shown/stated that the bones of the person called Peter is in a tomb in the Via Dolorosa and not in the Vatican! One wonders why this documentary is banned in India? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]



http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3a.htm#RelicsAndSaints

[color="#800080"]My inserts in purple[/color]

Duplicated relics within the Vatican:

Down in the basement of the Vatican... beneath the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica ... boxes filled with old bones, some of which are claimed to be the mortal remains of St. Peter himself.

Ten of the bones thus carefully preserved at this most holy focal point in all of Christendom, however, are the remains of domestic animals — goats, sheep, cows, swine, and a chicken. ...The bones have been [color="#FF0000"]certified[/color] to be the [color="#FF0000"]veritable[/color] remains of the Prince of Apostles himself, St. Peter. ...Most precious among the relics remaining of Peter’s skeleton in the Vatican are 29 fragments of one of his skulls. (St. Peter’s [color="#FF0000"]other[/color] skull is preserved in a reliquary at the Cathedral of St. John Lateran.)

[color="#800080"](Either Peter was 2-headed or, - gasp, shock, awe - NONE of it has anything to do with any santa petrus.)[/color]



The skeleton and skulls now venerated as the remains of St. Peter are not the only relics of the Prince of Apostles to have been discovered by the Roman Church, however. [More] bones were kept for fourteen years by Pope Pius XII himself, in his private apartment... the ones found in [color="#FF0000"]what Pius had certified to be the genuine tomb of St. Peter.[/color]

[color="#800080"](There are so many genuine tombs. Peter here, Peter there, Peter everywhere. Just like santa thomas has 6 tombs in India and 6 outside.)[/color]



Venerando Correnti, an anthropologist hired by the Vatican in 1956 to study the pope’s prized bones ... discovered five tibias to supplement the three fibulas. This meant that he was dealing with five to eight legs!

[color="#800080"](2 skulls and 5 to 8 legs. Hmmm. I've not done enough biology or maths for this probably - neither being my field of expertise - but I'm going to take a wild guess and conclude from this that Santa Peter was <trumpet-sound> deformed. "Heiligschennis!")[/color]



In addition to the human remains, Correnti’s collaborator Luigi Cardini identified bones that once galumphed around as hogs, sheep, and goats — and some that scratched around as chickens. Unlike the bones said to have been found inside the graffiti-covered wall, the bones actually taken from the "[color="#FF0000"]true[/color] tomb of the Prince of Apostles" are not venerated. Quietly, they have been stored away in some secret location.

[color="#800080"](Yeah, it's called the Void where all non-existent imaginary things are stored, to be manufactured/produced just in time for whenever people see through the fraud, in order to keep the faithful cannibal sheep sheepish still.)[/color]

From: Of Bones and Boners: Saint Peter at the Vatican

Frank Zindler of American Atheists wrote the above:

Formerly a professor of biology and geology, Frank R. Zindler is now a science writer. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the New York Academy of Science, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the American Schools of Oriental Research. he is the Editor of American Atheist.

[quote name='qubit' date='12 March 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1268398735' post='105127']Herein, it is also shown/stated that the bones of the person called Peter is in a tomb in the Via Dolorosa and not in the Vatican![/quote]And why did it take them so long to find the "real" bones of the "real" peter? So many Popes have claimed otherwise for so long, including - as seen above - Pope Pius XII (=Hitler's Pope, so he's quite recent) with his "genuine tomb of Santa Petrus".



For millennia Peter's relics have been claimed to reside in one particular tomb belonging to the catholic church of christendom. Then, suddenly, when that was proven a lie several times over (multiple "genuine" tombs have since been proposed for him), in the 21st century people discover yet another tomb of Peter with yet more - "Newer! Better! Realer! [color="#FF0000"]Certified more Veritable![/color]" - relics of his. How do they know it is "Peter"'s relics? What is their point of reference? For all anyone really knows it could just have been some early pope/cardinal/priest's Skeleton In The Cupboard who is now pronounced the new point of catholic pilgrimage.



The documentary is merely yet another lie if it claims "Peter" was buried elsewhere. Peter never existed - at least, no evidence for his existence; barring the manufactured kind of 'evidence', see below. Rather, there is evidence of his concoction.

So now that the church has been caught in the lie - it's long been exposed that Peter's bones aren't in the Vatican - they seek to keep the fiction alive by moving its "actual" place to elsewhere. "Never mind what we said at various other times before. We've now discovered - yet again - that Peter is actually at..."

Yeah right.

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3a.htm#RelicsAndSaints

See also: The Legend of Saint Peter: A Contribution to the Mythology of Christianity, a summary of Arthur Drews' Die Petruslegende "The Peter Legend".

And Making a Saint out of Peter

[quote name='qubit' date='12 March 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1268398735' post='105127']One wonders why this documentary is banned in India? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> [/quote]The full truth continues to be banned in the US too since it's still peddling petrus and jeebus. Still peddling false relics just like the early christian cheats used to: now people are running from one tomb to the next to "discover" that "all this time, he's *actually* buried in tomb Z, and not the certified genuine tombs A to Y".



India deserves to be told the full truth, rather than merely watching some documentary on the constantly-shifting alleged relics of the non-existent petrus from one place to another, just to keep his myth alive/from being found out (=same way the catholic church has now shifted his non-existence "st thomas" into af-pak from their previous claim of TN/Kerala area, ever since it has become reasonably accessible knowledge to the public that thomas never came to India).



The facts that we must be told - and told repeatedly - is that none of the apostles ever existed. The same way jeebus never existed.





And because I'm annoying - it's all I aspire for ("What do you want to be when you grow up?" "Annoying" said I. I think I've attained that) - I'm going to keep parroting Julian until people here can't avoid memorising what he said:

Roman Emperor Julian (mid 4th-century) opens his Contra Galilaeos - his work exposing the lie that is christianism - with:

"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness." [color="#800080"](Galilaeans=Julian's term for christians; "fabrication of the Galilaeans" is jesus christ, hence christianism.)[/color]



In the same work, Julian writes: "But if you can show me that one of these men [Jesus, Paul, etc.] is mentioned by the well known writers of that time, -these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius-, then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters." (Loeb Classics Translation)

I could be more successful in my ruthless annoyingness if only this could be made my signature. Admin, please?

[dhu]

The Biblical Eden is probably paradise cleansed of the natives, a New World so to speak.