Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Religion
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-04-2009, 04:15 PM   #1
michael christopher
Senior Member
 
michael christopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 4,914
Default Zeus as Yahweh/YVHV/Jehovah



I am really starting to think that the major archetypal force that people have been worshiping and fearing is just Zeus, the god of weather. For those who don't know, Zeus is the Roman God Jupiter with a different name. The Romans just stole all of the Greek Gods and changed their identities and names slightly.

I know the names are different, as Zeus is not Yahweh (well, it's pretty close if you translate correctly say Zeus' Latin name Jove) but I have been researching these religions and they all intersect at certain parts. YVHV is a mystical name that far predates Christianity and was in fact representative of the qabalistic tetragrammaton - which is a part of Jewish mysticism. It's funny that Christians think the qabalah is blasphemous when the most advanced concepts in their religion were hijacked from it!

Justin Martyr, one of the church's "founding fathers" and a major apologist, in explaining why Christians should not be persecuted to the Roman pagan emperor, drew a number of correlations between Roman paganism and Christianity. Although he was clearly drawing correlations, and in some cases pointing out minor differences that made Christianity "superior," the Catholic Church and Christian apologists have now somehow drawn the conclusion that Justin Martyr was ONLY pointing out how different Christianity was from Roman paganism. Nevermind that Jesus, the Hebrew name that literally means "Son of Zeus," was compared by Martyr to Dionysus and many of the other sacrificed and then resurrected gods of the ancient past. Here is the real kicker, a quote from Justin Martyr between 100-200 AD to the Roman Emperor (this was before Rome embraced the Catholic Church):

"For from what other source, if not from his reading the writings of the prophets, could Plato have derived the information he gives us, that Jupiter drives a winged chariot in heaven?"

Uh, what does that mean? That Jupiter was real, and that Plato read about it from the writings of ancient Jewish prophets? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. Sounds like Justin Martyr actually believes Jupiter was real. He is comparing the prophecy of Jesus to the prophecy of Jupiter in terms of legitimacy. One of the most important Christians ever, a founding Church father. You know, in response to the charge that Jesus was nothing more than a copy of ancient gods like Dionysus or Osiris, Justin Martyr's actual explanation was that demons went back in time and set up forgeries to resemble the real crucifixion of Christ so that people would refuse to believe in it. This is the real, official explanation of the Catholic Church up to this day. Luckily they don't have to use it too often, as most Christians don't even care about the evidence that Christ myth is based on multiple pagan deities.

In Clement of Alexandria's Stromata he literally writes the following pertaining to Zeus/Yahweh: "...the same God that furnished both the Covenants was the giver of Greek philosophy to the Greeks."

(Thanks to 1977 for bringing these quotes to my attention, they have been very important to my studies this weekend.)

Oh, really? Well, that would be none other than Zeus/Jupiter!

Clement was gnostic, however. He was extremely well read concerning pagan religions AND Christianity, and was a follower of Yeshua's teachings as a gnostic, and he lived between 150-215 AD - BEFORE the original Catholic Church and it's dogma were instituted.

But Justin Martyr wasn't a gnostic. So that doesn't explain his comment about Jupiter.

Some more interesting things to consider... Jupiter was also named Jove by the Romans. In Latin, to pronounce Jove, you say Yo-weh. Remarkably similar to Yahweh, the pronunciation of the qabalistic (and Christian) YVHV (the name of God).

Here is an extremely interesting history of early Christianity I am reading about:

Quote:
"In order to better understand the religion of Christianity and the evolution of the Vatican, one needs to have some knowlage about its early history. After the original Apostles of Yeshua had died off, and the gentiles had already diverted to form their own brand of religion that would become Christianity, we know that during that era, Christianity was a mishmash of different beliefs, espoused by various "church fathers". Records of early Christianity during this time frame is very sparse. We know that there were a great many distinctly different sects of Christianity during the first decades after Yeshua's death. Peter and James at the Jerusalem Congregation saw their influence dwindle in the decades that followed Yeshua's death for this newly formed Roman religion of Christianity with its fictitious man-made god-man they were claiming to be Je-Zeus Christ. This shift to the Roman religion of Christianity had already been underway for some time. But the final blow that came for the Jerusalem Congregation of Yeshua, was when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE and again in 132 C.E. The carnage of these two events had scattered the people of Yeshua and removed their power base. In the ensuing void, the Christian gentile converts to the newly formed Roman religion of Christianity had easily took over and became the domonate religion. This perverse heathen religion called Christianity quickly began to spread throughout the territority of the Roman Empire. During this time frame, Christianity was a haphazard collection of various sects with often wildly divergent beliefs that all centered around the Christian heathen god, Je-Zeus Christ. The early Christian Church fathers and theologians desperately tried to create a single orthodox base for their religion, but none of these efforts succeeded until the fourth century CE. As Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, it was feared by many Emperors of Rome that it may also take over the power base of the Empire. Therefore; Christianity was outlawed in the Roman Empire until 313 CE, when a woman named Helena converted to Christianity. Helena just happened to be the mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine, and she prevailed on him to legalize the religion. Constantine did her one better, he not only legitimized Christianity for the first time but exerted his political might to force the divergent Christian sects into an uneasy unity. Constantine was greatly motivated for political stability. He was not a Christian, he worshiped a sun-god, and wasn't baptized until he lay on his death bed. Nevertheless, he was a force to be reckoned with. Constantine had a hand to directly shape the theological content of Christianity. He convened the Council of Nicea in 325, bringing together the scattered bishops of the Christian communities that were located throughout the Roman Empire. Constantine had forced them to agreed on a single theology for this perverted, heathen religion known as Christianity in order to bring some peace and stubility upon his Empire. The resulting "Nicene Creed" became the Roman Catholicism of today. Many of these Councils would follow to trash out the various beliefs they had about the divinity of their fictitious god, the virgin birth, the Holy Spirit and the resurrection of the dead. But a time came when the question of who had direct sucsession to Peter came up. In that the Catholic Church claims to have apostolic succession, an unbroken chain of valid popes that go all the way back to the Apostle Peter. We know that during that era, the early Roman "church fathers" had forged documents to prove direct apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter. This document was later to be proven to be a forgery by scholers of early Christianity. Other documents the Vatican had, also proved to be forgeries. These documents were known as the false decretals, better known as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. I had mentioned this on other web pages. What this Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals is, it is a forged document of the early history of the Roman Catholic Church. They consist of 115 documents that were supposedly written by the early church fathers. The purpose of the forgeries was to prove direct apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter in order to increase the power of the Pope and the Catholic Church. For three hundred years, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and other forgeries were used by Roman Popes to claim authority over the Church in the East. One famous forgery came from the ninth century CE. It was a document that claimed that Emperor Constantine gave the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope used it to claim authority over the Greek Orthodox Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these false claims of primacy. When the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church tried to discuss the issue with the Church of Rome, the popes often used these forged documents to back up the Roman Catholic Church claims. During the first 700 years of Christianity, the Greeks had looked upon Vatican Rome, as the "home" of forgeries. This, and many other issues resulted in the separation of the Greek and Eastern Orthodox Churches from the Roman Catholic Church. Additional documents that had been tampered with, and thus became forgeries, came to light. It was found out that many genuine documents the Vatican had, had been altered. Some of these documents were changed to say the very opposite of what they had originally said. Such was the case with the translation and re-writing of the New Testament. The Roman Church had a great deal to do in changing the text during the translation of the books, better known as "The Gospels" of the New Testament. This is what Protestant Christians relie upon as their faith. A faith based upon a book that had been corrupted by the early "church fathers" which is reflected in the Christian Bible."
Unmasking the Catholic Church (and Christianity)

I will elaborate more later, about how Zeus is also Enlil and perhaps other ancient gods.

Also, when you think of the old testament Christian God, don't you think of a bearded old white dude? Doesn't that look like Zeus? Just saying.
__________________
"We're having so much fun with the poisonous people,
spreading rumors and lies and stories they made up." - Bowie

grace society
"Scrier" (my first novel)

Last edited by michael christopher; 05-04-2009 at 04:16 PM.
michael christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 04:57 PM   #2
michael christopher
Senior Member
 
michael christopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 4,914
Default

I think I am starting to realize that Christianity is a neo-pagan religion, and that Christians worship a false God.

This is a very weird feeling for me, I would have always thought this to be blasphemous and dangerous to even consider a few years ago.

I feel like I am coming to see the true spirit of Yeshua.
__________________
"We're having so much fun with the poisonous people,
spreading rumors and lies and stories they made up." - Bowie

grace society
"Scrier" (my first novel)
michael christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 09:04 PM   #3
major seven
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael christopher View Post
I think I am starting to realize that Christianity is a neo-pagan religion, and that Christians worship a false God.

This is a very weird feeling for me, I would have always thought this to be blasphemous and dangerous to even consider a few years ago.

I feel like I am coming to see the true spirit of Yeshua.

FM7
How do you see the true spirit of Yeshua?
major seven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 10:37 PM   #4
michael christopher
Senior Member
 
michael christopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 4,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by major seven View Post
FM7
How do you see the true spirit of Yeshua?
Yeshua is very similar to the Biblical Christ, except that he is not the Biblical Christ and there is a lot more to him than the Bible allows for. The Bible has neutered Christ and left out most of his most sacred and important teachings, as well as created some of his teachings directly out of thin air- like the book of John, for instance. The Book of John wasn't written until long after the death of Jesus, and the other gospels were very likely tampered with, as the Catholics tampered with everything in the entire Bible long before it ever made it's way to public circulation.

If you mean how do I see it in my mind, well... I don't know. I guess I picture the traditional Jesus, but know at the same time he is not the same as Je-Zeus. Je-Zeus is a Roman pagan deity that never existed, and who owes his existence to a figurative, non-existent Zeus.
__________________
"We're having so much fun with the poisonous people,
spreading rumors and lies and stories they made up." - Bowie

grace society
"Scrier" (my first novel)

Last edited by michael christopher; 05-04-2009 at 10:39 PM.
michael christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 03:41 AM   #5
1977
Senior Member
 
1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,614
Default

Yeah, you can really learn the most about the history of Christianity by simply reading through all of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. (I admit that I'm still plodding through the whole thing...)

One thing to remember is that Platonic philosophy is Kabbalah, or, as the scholars would have it, Kabbalah is Plato: http://www.newkabbalah.com/plato.html

Quote:
The influence of Greek philosophical thought, particularly that of Plato and Neoplatonism, upon the development in the Kabbalah has long been recognized. A number of Kabbalists took note of a close relationship between the Kabbalah and Platonic philosophy, and some went so far as to suggest that the Kabbalah itself was a source for Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas.
So as always, there may be a deeper meaning behind the statements that Plato and the Rabbis were devotees of the same deity.

The "Je-Zeus" thing might have something to it, I don't know, but at the risk of flogging this one to death, I'm again compelled to point out this peculiar synchronicity in the name of Dionysus: http://www.bartleby.com/81/1178.html

Quote:
The Etruscan Bacchus was called Esar or Nesar; the Umbrian Desar; the Assyrian Issus; the Greek Dion-ysus; the Galatian Nyssus; the Hebrew Nizziz; a Greek form was Iacchus (from Iach, a shout); the Latin Bacchus; other forms of the word are the Norse Eis; the Indian Ies; the Persian Yez; the Gaulish Hes; the German Hist; and the Chinese Jos.

Last edited by 1977; 06-04-2009 at 03:42 AM.
1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 03:56 AM   #6
michael christopher
Senior Member
 
michael christopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 4,914
Default

This has been a great weekend for me research wise, I can feel the cogs turning in my head. I feel like I'm blowing spider-webs and dust off of ancient memories.
__________________
"We're having so much fun with the poisonous people,
spreading rumors and lies and stories they made up." - Bowie

grace society
"Scrier" (my first novel)
michael christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 04:27 AM   #7
1977
Senior Member
 
1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,614
Default

I will also submit this for your consideration as to the meaning behind "Iesous": http://sacred-texts.com/gno/th1/th110.htm#fn_392

Quote:
Plutarch, De Is. et Os., xxxiv. After saying that Osiris, or the Logos, is symbolised as Ocean and Water, and that Thales took his idea of Primal “Water, as the cause of things, from the Egyptians, the initiated priest of Apollo and learned comparative mythologist continues: “The Greeks say that ‘son’ (ὑιόν) comes from ‘water’ (ὕδατος) and ‘to moisten’ (ὕσαι), and they call Dionysus ‘Hyes’ (ὕην) as Lord of the Moist (ὑγρᾶς) Nature, he being the same as Osiris.” Stoll in Roscher’s Lex. (sub vv.) says that “Hyēs” and “Hyē” were respectively designations of Dionysus and Semele, and that the meaning is the “Moistener” and the “Moistened” (references loc. cit.). The nymphs who reared Bacchus were also called Hyades (Pherecydes, 46; p. 108, ed. Sturz). Hyēs was also a popular epithet of Zeus as god of rain. See also Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 782 and 1045 ff.; Anecd., Bekk., p. 202: Some say that Hyēs = Attis, others that Hyēs = Dionysus; “for Zeus poured (ὕσε) ambrosia upon him.” One of the names of Bacchus was Ambrosia (Pherecy., ibid.; Non., xxi. 20). I would therefore suggest that the mystic cry “Hye Kye” meant “O Moistener beget!”
At anyrate, I strongly suspect that it is more complex than "hail Zeus!"

Last edited by 1977; 06-04-2009 at 04:28 AM.
1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 04:39 AM   #8
michael christopher
Senior Member
 
michael christopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 4,914
Default

Thanks for your information, you have been very helpful to my examinations this weekend. I really appreciate it!
__________________
"We're having so much fun with the poisonous people,
spreading rumors and lies and stories they made up." - Bowie

grace society
"Scrier" (my first novel)
michael christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 05:26 AM   #9
1977
Senior Member
 
1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,614
Default

Another thought: the argument against these derivations is that the same word, Iesous, is used in the Septuagint for Joshua. (And this figure has many other parallels with the NT Jesus.) But as Joshua was himself the son of Nun, we encounter another interesting synchronicity, as Nun or Nu was the Egyptian deity of the primordial waters:
Going back to the original subject of the thread: one interpretation of the tetragrammaton Y-H-W-H is that they represent the "four winds." And in the Enuma Elish, we read:

Quote:
He [Marduk] made a net to enclose the inward parts of Tiamat,
The four winds he stationed so that nothing of her might escape;
The South wind and the North wind and the East wind and the West wind
He brought near to the net, the gift of his father Anu.
He created the evil wind, and the tempest, and the hurricane,
And the fourfold wind, and the sevenfold wind, and the whirlwind, and the wind which had no equal;
He sent forth the winds which he had created, the seven of them;
To disturb the inward parts of Tiamat, they followed after him.

Last edited by 1977; 06-04-2009 at 05:42 AM.
1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 01:19 AM   #10
amethyst
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in the midst of mediocrity
Posts: 6,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael christopher View Post
Yeshua is very similar to the Biblical Christ, except that he is not the Biblical Christ and there is a lot more to him than the Bible allows for. The Bible has neutered Christ and left out most of his most sacred and important teachings, as well as created some of his teachings directly out of thin air- like the book of John, for instance. The Book of John wasn't written until long after the death of Jesus, and the other gospels were very likely tampered with, as the Catholics tampered with everything in the entire Bible long before it ever made it's way to public circulation.

If you mean how do I see it in my mind, well... I don't know. I guess I picture the traditional Jesus, but know at the same time he is not the same as Je-Zeus. Je-Zeus is a Roman pagan deity that never existed, and who owes his existence to a figurative, non-existent Zeus.
How can you say that the book of John was created out of thin air? And the other gospels: the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke? They are great. And they were written by Christ's disciples (students) who were with Christ and learned from Him. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John- they all penned books that made it into the New testament. No surprise there. And they weren't Catholic btw. The Catholic "religion" came about much later after the first disciples had all died.

Yep, the translators did tweak and change some words and phrases in various translations over the centuries. But if you read all 4 gospel books, you will see a complimentary picture of the life of Christ, told from each of the disciples different perspectives.They are all saying essentially the same thing. They tell the about the life of Christ what he did and His message.
You need to do a bit more research into the history of the gospels. The book of John is ALL about God's love.

I think the disciple John understood this concept better than any of the other disciples. The book of 1st John, also written by this same disciple, was the one where we are first introduced to that phrase "God is love".

Quote:
The Bible has neutered Christ and left out most of his most sacred and important teachings,
What can be more sacred and important than learning of God's love for all mankind?

In the very last chapter of the book of John, he wrote "there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written " (John 21:25)

Last edited by amethyst; 07-04-2009 at 01:19 AM.
amethyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 03:40 AM   #11
dedicate
Senior Member
 
dedicate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,306
Default

I like to put a name on what people like M.C. do with the scripture. Something a little more educated than "hog wash".

It's difficult to understand the why's of it.-- this screetching attempt to explain in materialistic/mythic terms the scripture.

Maybe these people like M.C. and 77 are just afraid to open up, show love and compassion for life. Maybe that is it. I assure you guys, it will not take away from your masculinity to show a little love and wonderment for creation. Give it a try. Not here. But somewhere else, if you like. Just let down your guard and let the light come in. It's a beautiful thing.


"The angels will rejoice more at one single person being saved ,,,,than at all those who are already saved" -- its a beautiful thing.

Last edited by dedicate; 07-04-2009 at 03:45 AM.
dedicate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 03:55 AM   #12
michael christopher
Senior Member
 
michael christopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 4,914
Default

^ To the poster above, your assertion about my character is a joke.

To Amethyst: The Book of John was written nearly 100 years after Christ died to combat gnostic beliefs about the spiritual meaning of Christ's teachings. Some good texts to read concerning this are written by Ellen Pagels, "Beyond Belief" and "The Gnostic Gospels." Of course, the evidence does not necessarily have to be believed.
__________________
"We're having so much fun with the poisonous people,
spreading rumors and lies and stories they made up." - Bowie

grace society
"Scrier" (my first novel)
michael christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 04:00 AM   #13
dedicate
Senior Member
 
dedicate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,306
Default

Your posts are a joke. I mean really, they are funny.

Last edited by dedicate; 07-04-2009 at 04:06 AM.
dedicate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 04:18 AM   #14
1977
Senior Member
 
1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,614
Default

I am simply attempting to open interesting lines of inquiry and promote discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael christopher View Post
^ To the poster above, your assertion about my character is a joke.

To Amethyst: The Book of John was written nearly 100 years after Christ died to combat gnostic beliefs about the spiritual meaning of Christ's teachings. Some good texts to read concerning this are written by Ellen Pagels, "Beyond Belief" and "The Gnostic Gospels." Of course, the evidence does not necessarily have to be believed.
Pagels so thoroughly whitewashes and misrepresents Gnosticism that I almost suspect that she is one of those scholastic figures who is deliberately promoted to deceive people. John is thoroughly Gnostic--or, more properly, Platonic, after the manner of Philo--but is intentionally written, as with so many scriptures, to mislead the profane. For in the Naassene document that I have quoted so many times before, we read (following, of course, the words of Christ and Isaiah alike):
Quote:
C. For the Greatnesses (H. he says) needs must be spoken, but so spoken by all everywhere, “that hearing they may not hear, and seeing they may not see.” 2
And later, Mead comments:
Quote:
168:8 Cf. John viii. 21 and xiii. 33. It is remarkable that in the text of our Gospels these logoi are addressed to the Jews; C., however, takes them as sayings addressed to the disciples. It is possible that we may have here a “source” of the Fourth Gospel!
And who were these initiates?
Quote:
In my opinion, he was a contemporary of that period and a member of one of those communities whom Philo classes generally as Therapeut. He was, moreover, not a worshipper of the serpent, but a worshipper of that Glorious Reality symbolised as the Serpent of Wisdom, and this connects him with initiation into Egypto-Chaldĉan or Chaldĉo-Egyptian Mysteries.
And although it will no doubt prompt further derision, I cannot resist mentioning this succinct comment from the Wickedest Man in the World himself:
Quote:
It is rather amusing to observe that ultra-Protestants, in proving that Roman Catholicism is pagan and phallic, which they do quite irrefutably, need merely to be confronted with the proof of the Catholics that every point of their religion is derived from Scripture, to form the premisses of a syllogism, whose conclusion is that Christianity is but an adaptation of Phallicism.

NOTE: Renan admitted that the only rational God is
the Sun, who is in the Macrocosm what the Phallus
is in the Microcosm.

Last edited by 1977; 07-04-2009 at 04:48 AM.
1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 04:52 AM   #15
dedicate
Senior Member
 
dedicate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,306
Default

Yeh,,, I wonder about you 77. I wonder about your soul. I wonder if you don't instigate via subversive measures all this stuff I'm talking about. In other words, without you really coming out and saying "suicide is a good idea", you are encourage people down the equelly wrong path. -- you seem to encourage people to look at things wrongly. Have you no shame?

Last edited by dedicate; 07-04-2009 at 04:53 AM.
dedicate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 05:01 AM   #16
1977
Senior Member
 
1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedicate View Post
Yeh,,, I wonder about you 77. I wonder about your soul. I wonder if you don't instigate via subversive measures all this stuff I'm talking about. In other words, without you really coming out and saying "suicide is a good idea", you are encourage people down the equelly wrong path. -- you seem to encourage people to look at things wrongly. Have you no shame?
lol what

sorry dude, try not to kill yourself

Last edited by 1977; 07-04-2009 at 05:19 AM.
1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 05:05 AM   #17
amethyst
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in the midst of mediocrity
Posts: 6,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael christopher View Post
^ To the poster above, your assertion about my character is a joke.

To Amethyst: The Book of John was written nearly 100 years after Christ died to combat gnostic beliefs about the spiritual meaning of Christ's teachings. Some good texts to read concerning this are written by Ellen Pagels, "Beyond Belief" and "The Gnostic Gospels." Of course, the evidence does not necessarily have to be believed.


Quote:
Dating the Gospel of John is difficult, if not impossible; some place it before 70 and others as late as the 90's. The evidence is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. The Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel of John Fourth Gospel states that John wrote the gospel sometime after his exile of the island of Patmos (He is considered to be the author of the Book of Revelation): "He [the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed Revelation on the Island of Patmos." Whether this is true is difficult to know. It should also be noted that it was once thought that the Gospel of John was written well into the second century, but the discovery of a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John, known as Rylands Papyrus 457, which is dated to no later than 150, suggests that the gospel was written earlier than the second century, since it would take some time for the gospel to have a wide circulation.

Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52)

The Rylands Papyrus 457 (a.k.a. P52) was discovered in Egypt; paleographically it is to be dated not later than 150. Its present location is John Rylands Library in Manchester. The recto contains John 18:31-33, while on the verso is found John 18:37-38.



http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm

Quote:
To Amethyst: The Book of John was written nearly 100 years after Christ
Regardless of the exact date of when it was written, the fact is, it was written by John, with multiple scholarly support from various sources and historical works, that anyone who wants to, can research on their own. It is not necessary to list the numerous historical accounts supporting the fact that John wrote the book. It would take up much space in the thread. I provided but one link. Anyone can look it up for themselves.

On another note, the overwhelming archeological evidence supporting the biblical books of the gospels, is not in question. I just watched a television show on the National Geographic channel which highlighted an archeological discovery of an ampitheater in Caesarea, Israel where an inscription in stone, bearing the name of Pontius Pilate was found. Oh, and Pontius Pilate was mentioned by John in chapter 18 and 19 of his book.

If there was a Pontius Pilate mentioned in scripture, there must also be Jesus Christ, as Pontius Pilate is the one who history records, ordered Jesus to be crucified.



http://www.bible-history.com/archaeo...scription.html
amethyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2009, 06:15 PM   #18
michael christopher
Senior Member
 
michael christopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 4,914
Default

Okay Amethyst, I respect your view, I hope that you respect mine as well. The Book of John is out of sync with the other three gospels, on top of that the "profane" weren't even allowed to read it for centuries anyway. You have read enough evidence to satisfy your spirit in regard to the legitimacy of the Bible - I simply don't agree with the evidence you have to prove your point, as I'm sure you don't agree with the evidence I have to prove mine.

It doesn't matter to me anyway, as I think the Bible is a sham.

The important thing is that we agree that people should love each other and be peaceful.

I am glad however that over the last week during these religious discussions, I have learned that I disagree with you a lot less than I thought, I feel like some level we have come to a middle-ground in regard to the importance and beauty of the individual named Y'shua/Jesus.
__________________
"We're having so much fun with the poisonous people,
spreading rumors and lies and stories they made up." - Bowie

grace society
"Scrier" (my first novel)

Last edited by michael christopher; 07-04-2009 at 06:16 PM.
michael christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 09:11 PM   #19
amethyst
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in the midst of mediocrity
Posts: 6,209
Default

Quote:
The important thing is that we agree that people should love each other and be peaceful.
You know, I'm down wit dat
amethyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 10:21 PM   #20
zero1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,716
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by MC
The important thing is that we agree that people should love each other and be peaceful.
Yeah, that's how the bad guys get away with murder.

How come we don't love each other and kill the fucking bad guys...for love?

Huh?
zero1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 AM.