Jesus Christ Landed On The Moon: Fact or Fiction?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Never viewed it from that angle.

Excellent reasoning I have to admit!

Not really.

Kennedy's murder has never been fully disclosed either.

But we're off topic again.

The conspiracy theory we're discussing here happened 2,000 years ago....

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The complete proof that it wasn't faked is have you ever tried to keep 500 Americans to keep their mouths shut for 30 years?

Actually they did. They killed them and threatened the rest. Watch how nervous Neil Armstrong gets when he gets questioned about it. I think there is a film out there of it. i'll see if I can find it.

[Hollywood Jesus]

On Christ and possible marriage: Doesn't matter to me one way or another. Social norms suggest that he probably was married.

However, there also was a celeibate group in Israel at the time called Sens (sp?) and it is also quite possible Jesus spent time with this group. In fact, if he were Sens, it would make him all the much more mysterious--dangerous--to the leaders of the time.


The best support for believing in the deity of Jesus Christ comes from the radical Christian Tony Compolo. He says, "I believe it because I want to."

There's a lot to be said for following your 6th sense. Call it gut instinct or heart.

Whatever you follow, ride it hard. Truth will withstand the hard ride.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by vanzilla
See Cat - what you've posted is exactly my problem with organized religion and I'm glad you called the church out for it.

I've had bad experiences with a church in the past. When I was 14 my mom was heavily attending a Baptist Church. She invited two of the ministers to the house one day. They basically told me that if I didn't repent all of my sins that I was going to spend an eternity in hell. When I asked them - Why would God sentence a 14 year old to a life of eternal damnation when he hasn't even gone through much of life's experiences? (OK, THOSE WEREN'T MY EXACT WORDS, but you get the jist) - They basically danced around the question and told me that the only way to get into heaven was to be baptised, throw out all of my rock records - INCLUDING VH - and basically start going to church every Sunday and read the Bible every day. Do those things or I'm going to hell.

So I took it as a scare tactic. The fact that those spineless bastards had the fucking balls to tell a 14 year old kid that type of stuff is unbelievable! First of all most all 14 year old boys are already fucked up with all the puberty shit going on that they have enough problems. The last thing they need is a repent or burn ultimatum.

My younger brother pretty much alienated my family because he became involved with a church that was overly zealous.

That's why I'm not a Christian. Those experiences led me to do my own research into the history of the church and I learned that 99 percent of what we were taught to believe was mostly concocted by committees used to vote on what was included or excluded in the Bible. Most of the stuff written in the Bible can't be backed with archeological evidence (Moses spending 40 years in the desert with the slaves) or scientific proof (Noah's Arc? C'mon man).

I've always said if a person has faith - I can't touch you. I'm not out to change anyone's beliefs because that is just a waste of time. You're obviously a Christian and I have no problem with that. My problem lies with other Christians who are quick to judge me and others like me because we don't have the same beliefs.

This is a good debate. Thanks for hearing me out.

First of all, God doesn't send people to hell, he loves all his children way to much to do such a thing. It isn't written that he loves only his followers. It is written that he loves all of his children, the sinner and non-sinner alike.
The thief who was crucified to his left had never been to church, or heard the word of God, but as he watched Jesus be put to death having done nothing wrong he had faith in Jesus, which is what saved his soul.
The man to the right of Jesus taunted him claiming if he was the Son of God he could save himself and them, but that was not the plan, and Jesus did have a choice in the matter. But he was determined to follow God's will, and God's will was done, but he had a choice as we all do.
It isn't God who sends a soul to Hell, it is the soul that condemns itself to Hell by the choices we make, by not living a life that is pleasing to the Lord, and by denying Jesus Christ.

As a kid growing up i always looked on preachers as some sort of Royalty, the men with the plan, sitting upon the throne of knowledge and i had better listen to every word and cling to it as if my life depended on it.....Hogwash, they are just men who are led by the same spirit that has tugged at me since youth. the only difference is what they allowed themselves to believe.

The one thing that i have learned first hand is that most all churches teach by the traditions handed down by holy men before them, most of which aren't in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
They go to Seminaries and are implanted with these traditions.
But the Hebrew meaning of Tradition is "Nothing Useful", and if you cannot prove all things, then you are not to believe them.

I Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"

Water Baptism won't save your soul, it is more a symbolic gesture that suggests you are serious about commiting your life to God and having a relationship with him through his son, Jesus Christ.
Again, go back to the man crucified to the left of Jesus, he wasn't Baptised and Jesus assured him a place in the kingdom for saying basically two simple words - "Remember Me".

It's not about sitting in a comfortable pew, it isn't about how much money you give, it isn't about a huge building filled with people...It is about what is in your heart and loving Jesus for what he did for you, me, and everyone walking the earth.

It is about living a life that is pleasing to the Lord, do that and he'll welcome you into his loving spirit with arms wide open. repent for your sins so that you can begin your new life sin free as it was Jesus mission to wash those sins away by his blood.
All you have to do is believe in your heart that he is real and ask for forgiveness.
Then your only requirement is to spread the word, share what you have learned and get behind a church that shares the right message according to his word without scare tactics or bills they cannot afford to pay without extorting it from it's members.
It shouldn't be about money, but at the same time, a church does need support in the form of financial support.
But you only give what you can when you can and if you cannot, nobody will look down upon you, or keep you from attending the service.

Man, I have sat through services where they have harped on money, claiming they cannot pay their bills and that they will have to stop broadcasting on TV if the people don't give until it hurts.

I have one thing to say about a church drilling that message into it's congregation - Bye Bye, see ya later!
My old church had a man that said to it's Elders "Bring in more people so we can meet the bills or i'm leaving this church"

He was gone in less than 4 weeks because the people in the seats stopped coming alltogether. Most of them didn't even know of his altimatum, but the spirit did, and he was done there.
The Lord truly does work in mysterious ways.

Even on TBN and CBN, you cannot trust the Televangelist that claims that George W. Bush is the chosen President. Even if that were true, they wouldn't know enough to profess it as they do.
They claim that because the bible talks of wars, and rumors of wars, that the Christian has a right to stand on the sidelines and root for our side to kill as many of the enemy as they can.
that's such a load of crap it makes me physically sick to my stomach.

Any servant of God who acts as a Cheerleader to war is not of Christ, for he told everyone to "love thy enemy", he told us to take their burdens as our own and spread the Good News, not Bombs and Bullets.
If they take up a sword and strike you down, you will have done your duty on this earth, and life doesn't end there for the faithful for your eternity will be spent as it was for that theif, with Jesus in paradise.

Seek the Lord with all of your heart and he will provide you all the tools of knowledge for your journey through this life.

[Hollywood Jesus]

Originally posted by Cathedral
First of all, God doesn't send people to hell, he loves all his children way too much to do such a thing.

...It isn't God who sends a soul to Hell, it is the soul that condemns itself to Hell by the choices we make, by not living a life that is pleasing to the Lord, and by denying Jesus Christ.

The entire post was golden. Echos my experiences and thoughts to a T. Nice job, Cathedral.

Inspired at a DLR website. Who would have guessed?

[Cathedral]

Really, I don't even think i'm here for DLR anymore, lol.
It's the members that keep me coming back.

I do however hope that i have cleared up my point of view of why i don't like the term "Christian" as it is used to describe groups of people who are simply not alike beyond that word.

I know i am not perfect, but i don't take what i am told as truth without finding proof in the word.
And a lot of what i was told growing up isn't supported without a healthy dose of twisting of the scripture out of its true context.

But the conclusion is that the bible isn't hard to understand unless it is made to be hard to understand. the answers are there right in front of you.
The only contradictions are the ones created by man because they won't stop and study what they question before moving on.
The Devil wants you to find questions in the books, what he doesn't want you to find are the answers that document and prove what is written.
Remember the phrase, "The Devil is in the details", because that is so true. He is in the details and uses those details to turn people away from Christ.
But, those details that sow the books together to tell one truth are scattered about them all, one reinforcing the other, and so on, until the message is clear.

I am having to re-learn everything i was told all my life, because the flaws of mans teachings create confusion, and confusion leads to uncertaintly, which leads to doubt, which ultimately leads to success for the Devil in decieving good people.

Above all else, I have learned not to argue the word with those who refuse to approach it with a clear unbiased mindset.
If we spend time trying to reach the unreachable, someone who genuinely seeks the tuth may suffer for it.
Shake the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them, and move on.

I have seen many times on this forum alone how some puff out their chest after posting something they think disproves the gospels and their meanings, but they have only served to damage their own salvation and are doomed to remain lost until the Lord returns for all eyes to see.
Man can find fault in anything they choose to, but they have to deny the truth in order to do it.
Many have been decieved, and many more will follow, especially at the sound of the 6th trump.

[bueno bob]

YOU are the great great great great great great great great GREAT great grandniece of Jesus Christ. :D

[bueno bob]

Say what you will, "Dogma" kicked ass!

[Warham]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Actually they did. They killed them and threatened the rest. Watch how nervous Neil Armstrong gets when he gets questioned about it. I think there is a film out there of it. i'll see if I can find it.

You think the moon landing was faked too?

Good fucking grief.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Cathedral
But the conclusion is that the bible isn't hard to understand unless it is made to be hard to understand. the answers are there right in front of you.

Indeed, the scriptures have these words...

Luke 18:15-17 People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. But Jesus called for them and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it."

Matthew 18:1-5 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, " Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a child, whom he put among the, and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

[Cathedral]

Amen to that, brother Warham......

[Seshmeister]

Pity so many priests misread that as let me come onto the little children...

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Pity so many priests misread that as let me come onto the little children...

They'll get their just punishment for their actions, it's safe to say that is guarenteed.
But i also understand that not all Priests are sick like that.
I honestly feel bad for the image that has been laid upon them as a whole, but am dusgusted at the lack of action initially taken to address these issues properly by the church.

It's the same thing with Christians, not all who claim to be one is of Christ.

[Hardrock69]

Here is some reality. This is not a 'belief', it is FACTUAL.

I have copied and pasted only a few paragraphs below from the following page:

LINK


No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.


THE BIBLE GOSPELS

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels got written by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels got written during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.

The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a hellenized Jew and even possibly a woman. He (or she) wrote at a time of tension in the Roman empire along with its fever of persecution. Many modern scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke got derived from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source"). [Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.

John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the book got written in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)." [Spong]

Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.





NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus got born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although there occur many disputes as to the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happend after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, it can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people got born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply looking at the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of the post writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves.


WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what got later written about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?


Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

[Warham]

If Judge Greer in Florida listened to this case, he'd say Jesus did exist, because he bases his decisions on hearsay.