94 replies to this topic

[arunma]

In Hebrew, the name Joshua is written "Yehoshua." Yeshua is a variant of that name, and it could probably be translated to "Joshua" as well. I guess it's just a minor difference, similar to Jacob versus Jacobus. In Greek, Jesus' name is "Iesous."

Anyway, you're right that you can't always trust TV. Everyone has his own agenda. Personally, I don't know why Christians get so excited about the Bible code. Personally, it sounds to me like numerology, which is idolatry.

[Nevermind]

Yeah he had no idea hey. He actually said that it's 100% accurate because it uses mathematics and logic, which proves the existence of a supernatural being.

as in....wha??


and personally, the Bible Code sounds to me like a complete load of crap. I also saw a documentary called the Bible Code busted, which was basically the other side of the story, and they used the Bible Code system with Vanilla Ice's lyrics for 'Ice Ice Baby'.

Apparently both the Bible AND Vanilla Ice predicted the Twin Towers incident.

[arunma]

Yeah, the Bible code is bad science, if you ask me. The Bible was written in plain English (or Greek and Hebrew, as the case may be). It has literary depth, but there's no code inside.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

There's an Indian myth about a man named Issa.

Myth or not, the documentary showed Issa's burial site. On it there are carvings of the underside of his feet and there are scars there, which would align if one foot was placed on top of one another as if he had been nailed in that fashion. So he is a real person.

The myth could very well be about Jesus; I'm not very surprised. Christianity was brought to India directly by the apostle Thomas. Just as Judean myths have been created about Jesus (ever read "the infancy Gospel of James?"), it makes perfect sense that Indian myths would also be invented. In any case, this myth is based only on a couple sets of manuscripts which aren't very old, so academically speaking, it's not all that reliable. If I'm not mistaken, the myth was only discovered by a Russian person around 1900. Furthermore, many Hindus and universalists use this myth to prove that Jesus studied Buddhism, that Jesus was a Yogi, that Jesus supported Hinduism, and all sorts of other heretical ideas. But I've actually read the myth. Issa preaches against Brahmins and Kshathryas (the two upper castes), he tells them to "listen not to the Vedas" (the Hindu Scriptures), and he tells them to destroy their idols and worship the one true God who created heaven and earth. It ends with Issa going back to Judea, possibly at around age 29. Does this sound like a Jesus who supports Hindu idolatry? I don't think so. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation goes around about these myths. Heck, the chances that the myth is even slightly true is slim to none.   Issa sounds very similar to Isa, the Islamic name of Jesus. That might have something to do with the myth.

The same documentary went on about how the ideas that Jesus preached didn't seem very Jewish and had more similarities to Buddhist teachings. It also went on about how the story of the three wise men seemed very similar to what Buddhist monks do in order to find their next Dalai Lama or something like that and how the Gospels doesn't cover a single set period of Jesus's life, which corresponds to time he might have spent in India.

But I digress. Nothing to do with the argument, right?

Apparently both the Bible AND Vanilla Ice predicted the Twin Towers incident.

That's because the human mind is built to see patterns, even when there aren't really suppoed to be patterns there. We think we see words and hidden meanings hidden there, because our brain is set up to order information into patterns and shapes.

The Bible Code is good science. It proves that the human mind can see things that aren't there.

[Nevermind]

Exactly, so if this was a DOCUMENTARY implying that the Bible code was true, would you change your mind and believe it was real? No?

So just because there is a documentary about a tomb with a man inside who people claim was the real Jesus-figure, do you instantly believe it? If they showed a corpse inside, yeah I'd admit some relation, but just carvings? I don't think so. I mean, there's the Shroud of Turin as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls to match that kind of evidence.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I just received a post from Ladydragonrider concerning a post I made earlier on, but have no way to post her back, because she can't receive PMs for some strange reason... So here is my explanation, complete with quotes from her. There is nothing missing from her post, I've made sure of that.

Okay, dude, I just read the post you made about " . . .and if you believe in everything the Bible says, you got problems . . ."

What the hell is wrong with you??

This is why I don't like posting in such threads, because it inevitably causes people to become full of anger or hate or both and inevitably I end up getting angry, hate-filled or both. Generally, things get pleasant for all concerned.

Did it EVER occur to you that Jesus just maybe be real??

Yes. I never said he wasn't real.

Okay . . . tis obviously ain't gonna work with someone as thick-headed as you.

Ouch, that was uncalled for.

Answer me this: If you heard some urban legend, not having ANY relation to the Bible whatsoever, that somone died for his children and grandchlidren to come, would you believe it?
Of course you would.

Them why is it so hard to accept the fact that Jesus died for us???

:swordlink

Just because I stated you cannot believe everything in the Bible as being literally true, doesn't mean I said it was full of lies.

From the evidence I saw, Jesus may have accepted his fate but didn't really intentionally die for us.

He spoke for us. He taught us. He gave us salvation not from dying, but from teaching us how to treat one another. There is no need for him coming down to save us, if we follow his teachings. His greatest gift is his teachings.

I say this, because I don't want to see you angry because of something I said. It's bad for your health to be so angry. Perhaps I've offended you? I must apologise if that is the case.

I've gone back to the original post and realised that I accidentally put a full stop (period) at the end of one sentence, effectively changing the meaning of what I meant to post. The post that angered you so, should have read thusly:

If you take all of the Bible literally, then you've got a few problems:
1). If Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only offspring, how did they reproduce?
2). If all of the Bible must be obeyed, then it is Biblically sanctioned to buy slaves from neighbouring tribes/states/nations.

Amazing how one tiny error in punctuation can alter the meaning of a phrase so much, isn't it?

[arunma]

On it there are carvings of the underside of his feet and there are scars there, which would align if one foot was placed on top of one another as if he had been nailed in that fashion. So he is a real person.

Sounds to me like it's an attempt to disprove the resurrection. Did it say that there were any marks on his hands? If not, then he obviously wasn't crucified. Secondly, such markings on the feet could be caused by many things other than crucifixion. Finally, literally thousands of people were crucified by the Romans. Do you honestly think this body is of Jesus?

Maybe you personally do not. But I find it ironic that some people will believe anything that may disprove the veracity of the Christian religion. I'm sure people would believe that New York sewers were the homes of alligators, if the Bible said otherwise.

Oh by the way, if I'm not mistaken (I'll check soon), the Issa myth says that Jesus preached in India between ages 14 and 29, after which he returned to Judea.

The same documentary went on about how the ideas that Jesus preached didn't seem very Jewish and had more similarities to Buddhist teachings.

Really? I'd be interested to know how Jesus' teachings support Buddhist idolatries (that's not meant as an offense, but Buddhism is idolatry in the Christian context). Jesus says, "Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One." in Mark 12:29. That's a direct quote from Deuteronomy 6:5. Virtually all of Jesus' teachings are from the Torah. He constantly quotes the Jewish prophets and the Psalms. His teachings were recorded by Jews, who wrote the New Testament. There's nothing Buddhist at all about Jesus' teachings.

This sounds to me more like the sort of anti-Christian thinking that leads people to compare Jesus with Dionysus. Earlier today on another message board, someone claimed that Dionysus had died by crucifixion, while saving people from their sins (but if you read the Bacchae, which is the only mythology about Dionysus, you'll be surprised to find that nowhere in the story does Dionysus actually die!). If people can make up these lies, I'm not surprised that someone would compare Jesus to Prince Gautama (Buddha).

It also went on about how the story of the three wise men seemed very similar to what Buddhist monks do in order to find their next Dalai Lama or something like that

I encourage you to read about how Buddhist monks really find the Dalai Lama. My research into the ancient world has focused more or less on Greco-Roman traditions, as well as the Middle East, so I don't know what you'll find. But my guess is that you'll find no similarity. Again, these parallels don't exist unless you want them to be there.

[Korhend]

The same documentary went on about how the ideas that Jesus preached didn't seem very Jewish and had more similarities to Buddhist teachings. It also went on about how the story of the three wise men seemed very similar to what Buddhist monks do in order to find their next Dalai Lama or something like that and how the Gospels doesn't cover a single set period of Jesus's life, which corresponds to time he might have spent in India.

Not really that odd of a thought. Us catholics have a saint that may have well have actually been buddha. Of course however one should consider that the reason for Jesus's and Buddha's success is that its a universal concept. There are many parallells between Confucious and Aristotle, but that doesn't mean they were not two entirely unrelated people.

[davogones]

Myth or not, the documentary showed Issa's burial site. On it there are carvings of the underside of his feet and there are scars there, which would align if one foot was placed on top of one another as if he had been nailed in that fashion. So he is a real person.

This doesn't really prove anything. It's pretty easy to fake a thing like this. It could have been faked just a couple hundred years ago and then become legend. Also this doesn't prove Issa was a real person. All this shows is someone went to the trouble of making a tomb for a possibly fictional person.

The same documentary went on about how the ideas that Jesus preached didn't seem very Jewish and had more similarities to Buddhist teachings.

Jesus' teachings are Jewish if you keep them in the Jewish context in which they were preached. Jesus was as Jewish as they come. One can interpret them through a Buddhist filter and consequently find all sorts of connections to Buddhism, including many that weren't originally intended to be there. Jesus' and Paul's teachings were interpreted through a Greek philosophical filter by later church fathers, which is how we got modern Christianity and the Trinity.

[arunma]

Jesus' and Paul's teachings were interpreted through a Greek philosophical filter by later church fathers, which is how we got modern Christianity and the Trinity.

Touche. But that's a debate for another thread!

[Nevermind]

I'd like to see it through an anarchistic filter, that'd be something ay?


AY?


AYYYYYYYY???

[arunma]

Christianity reacts very exothermically with anarchy.

[Nevermind]

Yeah. You'd think it would rather work endothermically huh. But surprisingly it doesn't. Just amazing...

[arunma]

I don't care what someone believes, so long as they don't thrust it onto me.

Define thrusting it onto you.

[Zythe]

Indoctrination?

[SOAP]

In Hebrew, the name Joshua is written "Yehoshua." Yeshua is a variant of that name, and it could probably be translated to "Joshua" as well. I guess it's just a minor difference, similar to Jacob versus Jacobus. In Greek, Jesus' name is "Iesous."

Anyway, you're right that you can't always trust TV. Everyone has his own agenda. Personally, I don't know why Christians get so excited about the Bible code. Personally, it sounds to me like numerology, which is idolatry.

Wasn't the guy who discovered the Bible Code an atheist. Or am I thinking of the movie. Anyways, I don't believe that crap for a second either. My inner Baptist won't let me. I saw a documentary of it once. They claimed they had some sort of complex system but it looked more like they just picked random strings of letters like a croosword puzzle. XP

[Octorok]

I'd like to point out that I am Jewish, but that I have studied the Christian Bible. If you are truly a Christian than you can't believe that Issa is Jesus, because Issa is buried in India, and Jesus was resurected and ascended into heaven, not only in spirit, but his body went too. As for the bible code, did they take it from a Hebrew/Greek version or an english version of the bible? Because if they took it from the English version, then it would be completely fake.

[SOAP]

In the movie, the Omega Code they took it from the original hebrew and then later translated it to english.

[SOAP]

I'm sure they might have proved that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but I don't see how it would be possible to prove that any of them were older. I'd very much like to see a website, or something. Because the discovery of the tomb of any Biblical character would have made headline news.

I saw an article on it once online. What I thought was weird was that the tombstones in the photos they showed were written in plain english. I do believe he had brothers and sisters. Sure maybe Mary was virgin before Jesus was born but she had a husband. It'd be ridiculus to believe they didn't "get it down" after Jesus was born.

[arunma]

Wasn't the guy who discovered the Bible Code an atheist. Or am I thinking of the movie. Anyways, I don't believe that crap for a second either. My inner Baptist won't let me. I saw a documentary of it once. They claimed they had some sort of complex system but it looked more like they just picked random strings of letters like a croosword puzzle. XP

The most prominent Bible Code researcher is Eliyahu Rips. Since he's clearly an observant Jew, I doubt that he's an atheist. I do happen to know that another prominant researcher, Michael Drosnin, is a believer in "new age" philosophy (if I'm not mistaken).

I saw an article on it once online. What I thought was weird was that the tombstones in the photos they showed were written in plain english. I do believe he had brothers and sisters. Sure maybe Mary was virgin before Jesus was born but she had a husband. It'd be ridiculus to believe they didn't "get it down" after Jesus was born.

Actually, the belief that Mary was a lifelong virgin is a Catholic belief. Protestants accept that she probably had other children.

I'd like to point out that I am Jewish, but that I have studied the Christian Bible. If you are truly a Christian than you can't believe that Issa is Jesus, because Issa is buried in India, and Jesus was resurected and ascended into heaven, not only in spirit, but his body went too.

Yes, you've accurately described Christian theology. And this is one reason we don't believe that this "Issa" is Jesus. I suppose it might not be heresy to believe that Jesus visited India, but no believing Christian can believe that Jesus' body exists anywhere, because he was resurrected. And religious beliefs aside, it's absurd to believe that a random body found in India belongs to a Judean Jew who lived two thousand years ago.

As for the bible code, did they take it from a Hebrew/Greek version or an english version of the bible? Because if they took it from the English version, then it would be completely fake.

The code is taken from the original Hebrew of the Torah, and other parts of the Tanakh. As far as I know, no one has searched the New Testament for a code.

[Oberon Storm]

Everyone remembers that Dan Brown's book is fiction right? I know there really is some whacked out theory out there, but the Vatican has advised avoidance of this book. Why are people going crazy over a book of fiction?

[Alakhriveion]

Are you serious? People are stupid. You know that. Remember: M>A
Look, Frylock, you just have to accept the fact that we is dumb. Dumb as hell.
-Meatwad, ATHF

[Zythe]

Just last night, a Muslim was arrested for fundamentalism, because of honour killings permited in the Koran, regarding which, some Cleric said that to believe any holy book without interpretting it first, is foolish.

[Nevermind]

I'm so back on topic that it's not funny, but...


The Book of Jubilees. Has anyone heard of it??

[Dai Grepher]

Just plain crazy? I mean, the Bible's meant to be interpreted... right?

Dai Grepher: The Bible is meant to save people from their sins by leading them to Jesus, guide people through life, and bring us closer into God's will.
Some can interpret the Bible to mean what they want it to mean, but not without ignoring specific verses or twisting words around.

If you take all of the Bible literally, then you've got a few problems:  
1). If Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only offspring, how did they reproduce?

Dai Grepher: They were not. Adam and Eve had other children, I think all of them were girls if memory serves.

2). If all of the Bible must be obeyed, then it is Biblically sanctioned to buy slaves from neighbouring tribes/states/nations.

Dai Grepher: Actually, the Bible does not promote slavery in any way. It actually forbids it. The Bible speaks of having servants and maids that work for you in exchange for money. This is no different than having employees work for you on a ranch or in your travels. The Bible even states to the masters of these servants treat your servants as you treat yourselves, because you must remember who your master is in heaven, which is God.

[Alakhriveion]

Dai Grepher: Actually, the Bible does not promote slavery in any way. It actually forbids it. The Bible speaks of having servants and maids that work for you in exchange for money. This is no different than having employees work for you on a ranch or in your travels. The Bible even states to the masters of these servants treat your servants as you treat yourselves, because you must remember who your master is in heaven, which is God.

Actually... that's completely false. It discusses hte proper way to conduct slave-holding and slave-trade in detail.

[Dai Grepher]

Actually... that's completely false.  It discusses hte proper way to conduct slave-holding and slave-trade in detail.

Dai Grepher: What book, chapter, and verse? Actually, just tell me what book.

[Alakhriveion]

Leviticus. It explains that a Hebrew slave can only be held for seven years, and not beaten, but a foreign one can kept indefinately, the owner can sleep with the women whenever he likes, and beating and reselling are allowed. Here's a nice quote from Exodus:
"This is what the LORD says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, leaving none alive."