New Documentary - Michael Jackson Was Your Jesus

[Autumn II]

Fact that Jesus said he was Jesus and many didn't believe despite his miraculous healings and he himself stating he was Jesus, the promised Messiah.

That is a matter of FAITH, not FACT. Faith is perfectly valid, as such. But "fact," it is not. There is no possible way to know, for certain, what Jesus did or did not say. The accounts of Jesus in the Bible were written long after his time.

Likewise, Michael Jackson never claimed to be Jesus but he did state he tries to be very Christ like which is in line with his religious upbringing and his spiritual beliefs in the Bible.

Yes. He did say that. I'm hoping this thread doesn't go south, like so many others, in a debate as to Michael's spiritual beliefs. He was very, VERY careful to keep those private, although there is no doubt that he was a "deist," i.e. believed in God. But let's please try to avoid assertions of what he did and did not believe, or the thread will implode, as so many others of this nature have done.

To suggest that Michael is Jesus would be missing the point entirely. I find it offensive and Im sure Michael would find this offensive too. Michael knew he was a Healer but Jesus? No.

None of us here have seen this movie, and have no way of knowing if it is or is not "offensive." It may be that the film is an allegory, that points out examples of Michael's having lived a "Christ-like" life. Given that he said, many times, that he "tried to imitate Christ," I can't imagine that he would find a comparison offensive. Not only did he try to imitate Christ, but there was overt Christ-imagery in some of his videos, most notably "Will You Be There," and "Earthsong." I doubt the film is trying to say he was the literal Jesus, i.e. Second Coming. Because. .he's not HERE anymore, obviously. And sadly.

The reason these types of threads usually go south is people asserting to be factual, what is actually a matter of FAITH. Everyone's faith should be respected. But FACT is not the same thing as what one believes in a spiritual sense. What is written in the Bible, is. . what is written in the Bible. That it is IN the Bible doesn't make it something that can be proven, or disproven. Because it can't, or at least, no one has succeeded at that, yet.

I do find the movie intriguing, but we really don't know what's IN it, do we?

 

[kissybissy]

Even not being a fanatic religious person, I think this comparison is far off. Jesus, either a saint or not, he was a special person whose teachings are example to follow. There's enough proof he existed. Not sure about the tale about him in the Bible. There are studies about his life that suggest he didn't die on the cross and emigrated to India where he was seen as the reincarnation of Buddha. I would like to know more about his life. Shame there areh't documents about him. For those who like to read about his life I recommend the documentary Did Jesus die on the cross? by BBC. Not long ago you could watch it on youtube.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Ok. Not my intent to turn this into a religious debate because they never end well and people get hurt.

I am convinced we can speak about anything as long as we respect each other's right to opinion. The discussion can be interesting tin terms of sharing different arguments and literature.

Maybe I shouldn't have said Fact knowing that many people do not share my faith.
However from the historical accounts it is well known that the biblical Jesus said he was the promised Messiah, which is what partly got him killed. If we can't go by the accounts, then we might as well not speak of Jesus as of he ever existed nor acknowledge him. I have faith that what I believe is fact and there's no need to go into it here. My faith is not a science, it just is what it is ,whatever science is missing.

Sure, evreyone has their own faith based on variosu things. But unfortunately when it comes to "historical Jesus", we do not have a single historical document about him except the religious (Biblical ones and Apocryphal ones). Can we consider that the New Testament is a historical document about Jesus knowing that they were written several dozens of years, if not a century, after his death?

Either way Michael never said he was Jesus and thats what I'm trying to point out here. Thats a big difference between Michael and the "Historical" Jesus. One claimed to be the Promised Messiah while the other did not.

That is what is intriguing here actually. There is no "historical Jesus". There is a Biblical Jesus. And even so, we don't know what Jesus claimed himself word for word, because we have four different accounts narrated by four different scribes who never met Jesus. And when we read the Gospels, we can clearly see that Jesus gathers people thanks to his parables, speeches, deeds, miracles, and when people question him he doesn't always answer straightforwardly "I am son of God" (hence the debate on his human vs divine nature within the Christian and Islamic milieus), or "I am the Messiah", on the contrary he attributes all the power to the "Father".

Interesting question Bumper, why do so many people believe Paul's vision as opposed to other visions, now to answer this I would have to use the language of scholars and documented fact which I don't have...Hopefully one day the scholars and science can explain this Im sure they can, they have all the answers...

What is more interesting is that Paul, you can read it in the New Testament, changed the Jewish practices profoundly whereas the Gospels don't mention any change, on the contrary, in the Gospels Jesus says himself that he came not to change the Law (given to Moses), but to confirm it. But according to Paul some Roman/Greek pagan (non-jewish) practices could be done such as eating pork or not circumcise the males among other things.

 

[HIStory]

However from the historical accounts it is well known that the biblical Jesus said he was the promised Messiah, which is what partly got him killed. If we can't go by the accounts, then we might as well not speak of Jesus as of he ever existed nor acknowledge him.

What historical accounts? The problem is, there is no independent historical account of Jesus. We have the Bible and Apocrypha - all religous texts, written by Christians (thus obviously biased) decades after Jesus allegedly lived. Many of those Christian books contradict each other on who Jesus really was. Ever heard of the Gnostics, for example?
There are no contemporary accounts of him, no historical evidence, no independend accounts, nothing in Jewish or Roman writings, which is odd considering the Bible's claims of his huge miracles and his trial. There's also not any book written by him. So we cannot know what Jesus really said or did not say. All we have is second hand information written decades after he allegedly lived and not by eye witnesses but by people who heard the story from someone who heard it from someone else and so on. And each of those scribes who wrote the stories down had their own theological biases.

Just think about it how gossip spreads! What ends up in a tabloid about someone often has nothing to do with reality. What makes us think people were different in ancient times and they weren't twisting stories back then according to their own agendas?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Even not being a fanatic religious person, I think this comparison is far off. Jesus, either a saint or not, he was a special person whose teachings are example to follow. There's enough proof he existed. Not sure about the tale about him in the Bible. There are studies about his life that suggest he didn't die on the cross and emigrated to India where he was seen as the reincarnation of Buddha. I would like to know more about his life. Shame there areh't documents about him. For those who like to read about his life I recommend the documentary Did Jesus die on the cross? by BBC. Not long ago you could watch it on youtube.

I am a spiritual person, and I believe Jesus did exist, but I admit there is no single historical document proving so.
What you refer to his life seen as reincarnated in Buddha is not exactly that.

Buddha lived before Jesus, first of all. And second, that theory that he lived somewhere in Tibet was only a speculation by a Russian explorer on the Jesus' life that is missing in the gospels. As a matter of fact there is a huge gap in the Gospels and we don't have a slightest idea what Jesus did between 12 and 30. Even after his birth, his childhood isn't narrated, except in some apocryphas.

 

[MJJ7777]

What historical accounts? The problem is, there is no independent historical account of Jesus. We have the Bible and Apocrypha - all religous texts, written by Christians (thus obviously biased) decades after Jesus allegedly lived. Many of those Christian books contradict each other on who Jesus really was. Ever heard of the Gnostics, for example?
There are no contemporary accounts of him, no historical evidence, no independend accounts, nothing in Jewish or Roman writings, which is odd considering the Bible's claims of his huge miracles and his trial. There's also not any book written by him. So we cannot know what Jesus really said or did not say. All we have is second hand information written decades after he allegedly lived and not by eye witnesses but by people who heard the story from someone who heard it from someone else and so on. And each of those scribes who wrote the stories down had their own theological biases.

Just think about it how gossip spreads! What ends up in a tabloid about someone often has nothing to do with reality. What makes us think people were different in ancient times and they weren't twisting stories back then according to their own agendas?

Uyy. Yes, I know I know (Heard this a million times) . Seems like a pretty logical statement to get many to stop believing in this "fictional" fantasy character but How in the world does this fictional character manage to influence the World as much as he has right down even to our day, I guess thats what amazes me about the whole thing.

 

[HIStory]

Throwing documented facts that have been organized and interpreted from best guesses and most likely scenarios (much like my statistics and probability class) and the words of scholars mean nearly nothing because they are just like me and they weren't there (Much like a baby teaching another baby about life, what makes the other more qualified?) . Both sides are speculating. Somethings we can go by the books with, somethings we can't. Oh how many times does science have to change its "Facts". Don't get me wrong here Im a huge fan of science, in fact I'm majoring in a heavily scientific field but sometimes you gotta wonder, how in the world can we ever really know certain scientific facts for sure? Later to find out oops Einstein may have been off, so much Faith goes into believing science too. I don't remember if it was Einstein that said this but it was a scholar nonetheless since they seem to be the ruling authority, and Im paraphrasing every major discovery in science is just a miniscule part of the much larger Truth.
It totally amazes me how although certain facts get screwed up yet despite everything the world still goes on.

Actually the fact that science is changable is its strength, not a weakness. Scientific theories HAVE to be falsifiable - that's what makes it a scientific theory!

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

The fact that scientific theories are constantly exposed to criticism and examination and the chance to improve them is what makes science develope. As opposed to religious dogma which is often presented as unchangable truth that you need to accept by faith and switch off all critical thinking. And science does work, just look around yourself! Sometimes big paradigm shifts happen in science, but more often the changes in scientific theories mean fine-tuning and improvement and not totally throwing out former theories and replace them with new ones. For example Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't mean Newton was wrong. He too was right, only Einstein got to see a bigger picture of reality. The same way quantum mechanics doesn't mean Einsitein was wrong, it's just yet another bigger picture of reality. But his theory of relativity is still valid as well as the Newtonian laws of physics. Those laws work (just read about how satellites work) so it's not really right to say things like "oops... so much Faith goes into believing science too". When it does work, then it's a fact, not a matter of faith.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Uyy. Nevermind.
Going with what you said, I find it pretty telling that someone who does not have as much validating proof of existence has managed to influence the world as much as he has down to even our day?

Well, regardless of we're religious, agnostics or atheists, let's admit it, the ones that influence people minds are none others than those who hold the power to censor or spread selected literature through education.

And what's the best tool for politicians, governors, emperors, kings and queens to unite people who would be ready to die for "their" country than common religion or philosophy?

People never really had the choice. They've been always forced to either be "paganized", "christianized", "islamized", well in a nutshell "programmed" by the education they received or by the opposite reaction to the education they were about to receive.

 

[HIStory]

Uyy. Yes, I know I know (Heard this a million times) . Seems like a pretty logical statement to get many to stop believing in this "fictional" fantasy character but How in the world does this fictional character manage to influence the World as much as he has right down even to our day, I guess thats what amazes me about the whole thing.

Islam influences lot of people as well.

 

[MJJ7777]

That is a matter of FAITH, not FACT. Faith is perfectly valid, as such. But "fact," it is not. There is no possible way to know, for certain, what Jesus did or did not say. The accounts of Jesus in the Bible were written long after his time.



Yes. He did say that. I'm hoping this thread doesn't go south, like so many others, in a debate as to Michael's spiritual beliefs. He was very, VERY careful to keep those private, although there is no doubt that he was a "deist," i.e. believed in God. But let's please try to avoid assertions of what he did and did not believe, or the thread will implode, as so many others of this nature have done.



None of us here have seen this movie, and have no way of knowing if it is or is not "offensive." It may be that the film is an allegory, that points out examples of Michael's having lived a "Christ-like" life. Given that he said, many times, that he "tried to imitate Christ," I can't imagine that he would find a comparison offensive. Not only did he try to imitate Christ, but there was overt Christ-imagery in some of his videos, most notably "Will You Be There," and "Earthsong." I doubt the film is trying to say he was the literal Jesus, i.e. Second Coming. Because. .he's not HERE anymore, obviously. And sadly.

The reason these types of threads usually go south is people asserting to be factual, what is actually a matter of FAITH. Everyone's faith should be respected. But FACT is not the same thing as what one believes in a spiritual sense. What is written in the Bible, is. . what is written in the Bible. That it is IN the Bible doesn't make it something that can be proven, or disproven. Because it can't, or at least, no one has succeeded at that, yet.

I do find the movie intriguing, but we really don't know what's IN it, do we?

What?! where was I? I would Love to see that in all sincerity. If you don't want to put this in the thread although I don't see where it might hurt you or your argument, then I would really appreciate it, if you could PM me this find.

If you're right then I'll admit I'm wrong about Michael and what he claimed.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

As opposed to religious dogma which is often presented as unchangable truth that you need to accept by faith and switch off all critical thinking.

That would be quite secterian. Religions are much more flexible than that definition.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Islam influences lot of people as well.

Everything influences people. It is up to us to find what appears to be "common sense". We're all climbing the mountain towards its top from different sides and collect what we find on our way.

 

[MJJ7777]

Islam influences lot of people as well.

Very true. I don't know much about islam but I do know they reference to this "fictional character" Jesus, although to them he was a prophet I believe...so your point is that this faith is based on fictional characters also?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Very true. I don't know much about islam but I do know they reference to this fictional character Jesus, although to them he was a prophet I believe...so your point is that that faith is based on fictional characters also?

Islam recognizes Jesus as the Messiah and one of the mightiest God's messengers. Contrary to Christianism, Islam defines Jesus as a human being, not as a divine.

 

[HIStory]

Very true. I don't know much about islam but I do know they reference to this fictional character Jesus, although to them he was a prophet I believe...so your point is that that faith is based on fictional characters also?

I didn't say Jesus was a fictional character. In fact earlier in this thread I said I believe there was a historical figure around whom the myth was built up. There are people who aren't even convinced of that but I think there was probably a real person at the core of this story, though he was a regular human being who was later mythicized by his followers. The point is however that there is no proof of his existance or who he really was if he existed. And that we don't know what he really said and who he considered himself.

And Islam was founded 600 years later than Christianity and took over stories from the Bible (and twisted them), so Islam mentioning Jesus is no proof for Jesus, it's only a proof of the fact Muhammad knew the Bible.

 

[MJJ7777]

Islam recognizes Jesus as the Messiah and one of the mightiest God's messengers. Contrary to Christianism, Islam defines Jesus as a human being, not as a divine.

So they believe he is the Messiah...just not God's son? Thanks for clearing that up.

So we're going around in circles simply because I said "Fact" ...Let me rephrase accurately so as not to step on anyone's toes here

Once upon a time, in the undocumented story of the Biblical Jesus, it was believed that this man claimed to be Jesus C, the promised Messiah from the Old Testament and performed miracles... The End

What I know as of now (some info still pending from Autumn II) is that Michael Jackson never said he was Jesus and simply stated that he endeavored to live his life as Christlike as possible.

Two different stories here and as I am a follower of a fantasy like faith, I still find the title of this movie offensive. But thats just my problem.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

So he is the Messiah...just not God's son? Thanks for clearing that up.

Yes, according to Islamic teachings Jesus was created by God, not begotten by God. And it's the same account with Mary, being his mother. So according to Islamic teachings Jesus did not have a father.

 

[Pentum]

There is a facebook presence but on the surface I don't see any DVD distribution etc., maybe I didn't look in the right place, I only saw one theatre screening and a few excerpts on youtube.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/THE-MJ-JESUS-DOCUMENTARY/132018386814129



I think you're kidding, but if you had and wanted to contribute Islam's point of view (as difficult as it to even lump that all together, just as there is no one Christian viewpoint), I'd love to hear that because I would assume you'd have a lot to say on how you understand a Prophet. (and even Jesus). Would be fascinating to add.
If Krishna and Jesus are in here, there's still a lot that could be added.

The thing is, Mohammad, the last prophet, said that there would be no more prophets. He would be the last person. It also says this in the Quran.

So in Islam, it is impossible that Michael was a prophet or Jesus, as Jesus can not return in any form as a prophet. He will return as Jesus himself when the doomsday is nearing.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

The thing is, Mohammad, the last prophet, said that there would be no more prophets. He would be the last person. It also says this in the Quran.

So in Islam, it is impossible that Michael was a prophet or Jesus, as Jesus can not return in any form as a prophet. He will return as Jesus himself when the doomsday is nearing.

Thank you for returning, Pentum! :yes: I was always hoping to see a more inclusive thread such as this on MJJC.

And would you see any practical reason for the assertion that there would be no more prophets coming- does that to you simplify matters, or make them complicated?

From an outsider's view "no more prophets" sounds like quite the break. And to any newbie- that sounds incredibly progressive, you may say.

Does mankind perhaps no longer require prophets as a focal point? (I know, quite the assumption.)

 

[Autumn II]

I am a spiritual person, and I believe Jesus did exist, but I admit there is no single historical document proving so.

I "believe" that Jesus existed, too, but that belief is not based on "facts," because there really are none. I guess it's more based on trends? that over two-thousand years later, he's still having an impact? I've heard the idea floated that there was not one such personage, but several, that were combined and condensed into the Bible stories.

The story of "a" resurrection is an ancient mythology, with a parallel in Egyptian mythologies (the Isis stories) of the same general region, and it's found in many other mythologies. There is also the FACT (probably, a fact?) that Jesus could not have been born in December, because taxes were paid in the spring - -probably April. A spring birth is more likely (Mary and Joseph were traveling to pay their taxes). I think Jesus' birth came to be celebrated in December because of the Winter Solstice date, on which celebrations were prevalent in many pre-Christian religions. And so on.

There is not one shred of material evidence, not one word that Jesus wrote, himself, and nothing written during his life-span, that can be offered as a proof. Is it "likely" that such a person lived? I'd say so, but sure wouldn't presume to prove it. Because I can't. No one can.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

The thing is, Mohammad, the last prophet, said that there would be no more prophets. He would be the last person. It also says this in the Quran.

So in Islam, it is impossible that Michael was a prophet or Jesus, as Jesus can not return in any form as a prophet. He will return as Jesus himself when the doomsday is nearing.

According to some scholars not only Jesus will come, but Mahdi, the last one. Some believe Mahdi and Jesus will be the same person, some believe they're two different people.

Other than that, Qur'an also says that there are prophets that were mentionned by name in the Qur'an and others that are not mentionned by name opening the door to the possibility of accepting the idea that there have been prophets all around the world at different times, eras and places.

So, Michael, is he a/the mahdi?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Thank you for returning, Pentum! :yes: I was always hoping to see a more inclusive thread such as this on MJJC.

And would you see any practical reason for the assertion that there would be no more prophets coming- does that to you simplify matters, or make them complicated?

From an outsider's view "no more prophets" sounds like quite the break.

Does mankind perhaps no longer require prophets as a focal point? (I know, quite the assumption)

Because Islam considers that Muhammad was the seal prophet, that the message has been entirely delivered and religion fulfilled untill the end of times when Jesus will return.

 

[Pentum]

Thank you for returning, Pentum! :yes: I was always hoping to see a more inclusive thread such as this on MJJC.

And would you see any practical reason for the assertion that there would be no more prophets coming- does that to you simplify matters, or make them complicated?

From an outsider's view "no more prophets" sounds like quite the break.

Does mankind perhaps no longer require prophets as a focal point? (I know, quite the assumption)

Trying to answer this, but I'm not fully sure I understand your question

We don't need more prophets. Allah completed the religion with Mohammad - he was the last seal of the prophets. We don't need any more prophets. What would change if a new prophet came today? People would just say he was rubbish and call BS on him.

If an angle came from heaven tomorrow, people would say it's a hoax, it's fake, etc (which of course IS possible to fake some way, but you get what I mean).

 

[Autumn II]

The thing is, Mohammad, the last prophet, said that there would be no more prophets. He would be the last person. It also says this in the Quran.

So in Islam, it is impossible that Michael was a prophet or Jesus, as Jesus can not return in any form as a prophet. He will return as Jesus himself when the doomsday is nearing.

I want to respond to this one, too. Interesting! I also think that it lends credibility to the reality of Jesus' existence, that he is ALSO mentioned in the Quran.

As far as "no more prophets" are concerned? Like Christianity, Islam is a BELIEF system, not a FACTUAL/historical system, primarily. So as with any devout person -- he or she believes what he or she believes -- because that is what they BELIEVE. No proofs really possible, nor even necessary for a believer?

There is an interesting difference between the Bible and the Quran (FYI, if that's ok?) The Bible was written many years after Jesus' death. The Quran was written contemporarily with Mohammad, as TRANSCRIBER. In other words, it's said that he received the direct and untranslated words of God. In Arabic. And he just wrote them down. The Quran is a holy book, for that and other reasons, i.e there are prohibitions and right practices about how the physical BOOK should be treated and handled. It's not quite the same with the Bible, that can be stuffed into a back pocket, or laid on the ground, say, at a picnic, or whatever. So, the book of the Quran, itself, is a holy object.

Rationally? I think if there were once prophets (and I think there were), I can see no reason why that would not have continued. No way to prove any of that, of course.

 

[MJJ7777]

According to some scholars not only Jesus will come, but Mahdi, the last one. Some believe Mahdi and Jesus will be the same person, some believe they're two different people.

Other than that, Qur'an also says that there are prophets that were mentionned by name in the Qur'an and others that are not mentionned by name opening the door to the possibility of accepting the idea that there have been prophets all around the world at different times, eras and places.

So, Michael, is he a/the mahdi?

Michael being a mahdi, I can understand but I'm not sure what really makes one a mahdi? Did Michael's life match up with that? I don't know but the definition of Jesus , the promised Messiah of the Old Testaments does not match up with Michael Jackson's life IMHO.

AutumnII...Do you have the event where Michael claimed he was Jesus?

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Because Islam considers that Muhammad was the sceal, that the message has been entirely delivered and religion fulfilled untill the end of times when Jesus will return.

Does that sound like a contradiction, perhaps? I'm trying to see it through the glasses of a neutral bystander. So, a Prophet that clearly defines Islam, says that he's not the end of the story in a wider sense- and refers to Jesus?
I mean, Muhammad refers to Jesus and the Dalai Lama encourages meditation upon Jesus... now why would that be? Is there some overlaying thing all religions strive for, and can that truly be manifested in personal physical manifestation? Or could be the allegory again that many seem to see?

 

[HIStory]

I've heard the idea floated that there was not one such personage, but several, that were combined and condensed into the Bible stories.

Yes, doomsday and Messianistic cults were very popular at the time in Palestine because of the Roman oppression.
Also the Jesus (Yeshua) name was very popular. Some interesting and historical Jesuses from that time are:

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel.

Other Jesuses:

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa&#8217. It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

There is also the FACT (probably, a fact?) that Jesus could not have been born in December, because taxes were paid in the spring - -probably April. A spring birth is more likely (Mary and Joseph were traveling to pay their taxes). I think Jesus' birth came to be celebrated in December because of the Winter Solstice date, on which celebrations were prevalent in many pre-Christian religions. And so on.

In all fairness the Bible doesn't say Jesus was born in December, it's later tradition. However there are problems with the Biblical account of Jesus's birth as well. For example, the historicity of a census described in Luke is very much questionable.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I "believe" that Jesus existed, too, but that belief is not based on "facts," because there really are none. I guess it's more based on trends? that over two-thousand years later, he's still having an impact? I've heard the idea floated that there was not one such personage, but several, that were combined and condensed into the Bible stories.

The story of "a" resurrection is an ancient mythology, with a parallel in Egyptian mythologies (the Isis stories) of the same general region, and it's found in many other mythologies. There is also the FACT (probably, a fact?) that Jesus could not have been born in December, because taxes were paid in the spring - -probably April. A spring birth is more likely (Mary and Joseph were traveling to pay their taxes). I think Jesus' birth came to be celebrated in December because of the Winter Solstice date, on which celebrations were prevalent in many pre-Christian religions. And so on.

There is not one shred of material evidence, not one word that Jesus wrote, himself, and nothing written during his life-span, that can be offered as a proof. Is it "likely" that such a person lived? I'd say so, but sure wouldn't presume to prove it. Because I can't. No one can.

As far as calendar is concerned the entire Christian calendar is based on the sun and the ancient beliefs.

For example, Mithra was a deity who had 12 disciples. Each of them were represented by one astrological sign in the zodiac. The 12 disciples of course represnted the 12 months of the solar year.

Romans soldiers celebrated masses in the name of Mithra in th etemples called Mithraeum. They ate Mithra's body (bread) and drank Mithra's blood (wine) to give them courage. Romans, all over Europe built those temples. Later on some churches were erected on the ruins of those Mithrae.

The reason why they opted for Jesus's birth the 25th of December is an erroneus calculation. Back then they thought that the shortest day of the year was th 24th of december and that the days got longer as for 25th of December symbolizing the 're-)birth of the Sun.

Another example is the Easter. If I am not mistaken every year the Easter coincides with the equinox of the spring. In a nutshell, yes, everything is based on the ancient cult in Sun as the deity.

YOu have an excellent proof with the etymology of the word Sunday = the day of Sun, which means the day of "Lord". And what day do people go to Church?

 

[MsCassieMollie]

I am a Christian and know who Jesus is and he isnt Michael Jackson.
Michael Jackson believed in God believed in the bible and followed Jesus teachings.
I dont think he felt he was God or Jesus either. In fact publically said he wasnt.

Also there is proof Jesus existed and walked this earth. Even Non- believing scholars
agree he was real. They Just dont agree on who he was or his purpose for being here.

Best post in this whole entire thread! :clap:

 

[Autumn II]

AutumnII...Do you have the event where Michael claimed he was Jesus?

WHAAAT? Michael NEVER claimed he was Jesus! In fact, in that 1993 interview with Oprah, he said he was NOT Jesus (why he found it necessary to say that, I'm not sure?)

There was an unfortunate incident, I think it was in Wales? When Michael was performing EarthSong. He actually stripped off his clothing (not what it seems. . . :wild to reveal. . . white robes. He was surrounded by children. And THEN? Some dude jumped on stage, dropped his drawers, and MOONED the audience. He said later that it was because of Michael's "Jesus portrayal," and that he found it offensive. (I think there's a video of the full-moon still around somewhere)