why do christians insist on calling their prophet "jesus" even though, according to the greek/roman texts the guy's name was pronounced something along the lines of "EE-sous". sure, its not the name, its what he taught that is most important, but why do they insist on knowingly bastardizing their prophet's name? having asked this question in another forum, i was told that the name "jesus" was caused by someone goofing up the translation from latin. if something as important as the name of their saviour is lost in translation, could it mean that other parts of the bible are mistranslated?


also, whats the deal with wearing a cross around your neck? i doubt that when he supposedly comes back he wants to see everyone with a little replica of the instrument of his death.

also, whats the deal with wearing a cross around your neck? i doubt that when he supposedly comes back he wants to see everyone with a little replica of the instrument of his death.

Famous Bill Hicks joke, although I don't think jesus is suppose to physically come back. Although what i dont understand is he was born on christmas (proven wrong), died on good friday, and was resurrected on easter. Now if he was resurrected, where did he go after that? Why are we waiting for him to come back, when he already has?

Just an error in dialect or translation I'd imagine. But that's cool. Whatever, he loves it.

As for the cross; yeah it does piss me off. To me it represents a threat "he died for you, now you must live for him or suffer for eternity", trying to make me guilty. Rather than the fish.
The symbol of eternal life and fraternity of man.

Imma stop thinking about it because it makes me sad. We always rape our profits.

Famous Bill Hicks joke, although I don't think jesus is suppose to physically come back. Although what i dont understand is he was born on christmas (proven wrong), died on good friday, and was resurrected on easter. Now if he was resurrected, where did he go after that? Why are we waiting for him to come back, when he already has?

If I remember correctly, he ascended to Heaven after speaking a bit with his closest followers about their future mission.

If I also remember correctly, Jesus isn't even a name, it means 'Saviour' or something in it's Greek and is a title. I've heard one account that his name (Anglicized) of course was Joshua. Jeshua or something would be a bit closer to the real deal.

Simple truth is that we have 'no fucking idea' (thats the scholarly term btw ) what his real name was.

Guesses, some educated and some not so, abound but like everything else to do with him there's fuck all evidence.

Infact the lack of evidence itself is strange.....

*goes back to reading the "Holy Blood and Holy Grail"*

I find the continued lack of religous evidence a sign from a higher power (science) that religion is a bad practical joke.

why do christians insist on calling their prophet "jesus" even though, according to the greek/roman texts the guy's name was pronounced something along the lines of "EE-sous". sure, its not the name, its what he taught that is most important, but why do they insist on knowingly bastardizing their prophet's name? having asked this question in another forum, i was told that the name "jesus" was caused by someone goofing up the translation from latin. if something as important as the name of their saviour is lost in translation, could it mean that other parts of the bible are mistranslated?

I dont speak Greek, mate. If you want to make the case for mistranslation through the years hinging such an arguement on the mispronunciation of one man's name is a piss poor arguement. Regardless, Elijah was called Elias in the New Testament because of transliteration from Hebrew to Greek.

also, whats the deal with wearing a cross around your neck? i doubt that when he supposedly comes back he wants to see everyone with a little replica of the instrument of his death.

I dont wear a cross. I dont wear any jewelery, to be honest. That is a very funny statement to say about his coming back, though.

If I remember correctly, he ascended to Heaven after speaking a bit with his closest followers about their future mission.

If I also remember correctly, Jesus isn't even a name, it means 'Saviour' or something in it's Greek and is a title. I've heard one account that his name (Anglicized) of course was Joshua. Jeshua or something would be a bit closer to the real deal.

"Yeshua" would be its correct pronunciation. It makes little difference about what you call him because its universally understannd who you are talking about when you say "Jesus" (unless you are live in a Hispanic country where everyone and their brother is names Jesus. In which case its "jesuchristo")

Famous Bill Hicks joke, although I don't think jesus is suppose to physically come back. Although what i dont understand is he was born on christmas (proven wrong), died on good friday, and was resurrected on easter. Now if he was resurrected, where did he go after that?

Yes, and a lot of Christian mythos was lifted directly from Mithraism, which it supplanted.

And according to the Urantia Book, he spent a lot of time in India after the resurrection.

Just to clear things up a bit Im tired of so many morons saying he was born on December 25th NOWHERE in the Bible does it state that (in fact there are some clues that suggest it wasnt even in winter) it was just universally set to December 25th because Christians were confused on which day to celebrate it, whether you want to argue if they set it to Mithra's birthday or whether they put it there because a cardinal said so is debatable but highly irrelevant considering its people speaking from silence.

Just to clear things up a bit Im tired of so many morons saying he was born on December 25th NOWHERE in the Bible does it state that (in fact there are some clues that suggest it wasnt even in winter) .

I think thats the first time you've ever shown any real knowledge of the bible.

...highly irrelevant...

Funny, isnt it?

Just to clear things up a bit Im tired of so many morons saying he was born on December 25th NOWHERE in the Bible does it state that (in fact there are some clues that suggest it wasnt even in winter) it was just universally set to December 25th because Christians were confused on which day to celebrate it, whether you want to argue if they set it to Mithra's birthday or whether they put it there because a cardinal said so is debatable but highly irrelevant considering its people speaking from silence.

Pre-Christian winter festivals
A winter festival was traditionally the most popular festival of the year in many cultures. Reasons included less agricultural work needing to be done during the winter, as well as people expecting longer days and shorter nights after the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. In part, the Christmas celebration was created by the early Church in order to entice pagan Romans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter celebrations. Most of the most important gods in the religions of Ishtar and Mithra had their birthdays on December 25. Various Christmas traditions are considered to have been syncretised from winter festivals including the following:


Saturnalia

Alleged representation of Christ in the form of the sun-god Helios or Sol Invictus riding in his chariot. Third century mosaic of the Vatican grottoes under St. Peter's Basilica, on the ceiling of the tomb of the Julii.Main article: Saturnalia
In Roman times, the best-known winter festival was Saturnalia, which was popular throughout Italy. Saturnalia was a time of general relaxation, feasting, merry-making, and a cessation of formal rules. It included the making and giving of small presents (Saturnalia et Sigillaricia), including small dolls for children and candles for adults. During Saturnalia, business was postponed and even slaves feasted. There was drinking, gambling, and singing, and even public nudity. It was the "best of days," according to the poet Catullus. Saturnalia honored the god Saturn and began on December 17. The festival gradually lengthened until the late Republican period, when it was seven days (December 17-24). In imperial times, Saturnalia was shortened to five days.


Natalis Solis Invicti

The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." The use of the title Sol Invictus allowed several solar deities to be worshipped collectively, including Elah-Gabal, a Syrian sun god; Sol, the god of Emperor Aurelian (AD 270-274); and Mithras, a soldiers' god of Persian origin. Emperor Elagabalus (218-222) introduced the festival, and it reached the height of its popularity under Aurelian, who promoted it as an empire-wide holiday.[18]

December 25 was also considered to be the date of the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma. It was therefore the day the Sun proved itself to be "unconquered" despite the shortening of daylight hours. (When Julius Caesar introduced the Julian Calendar in 45 BC, December 25 was approximately the date of the solstice. In modern times, the solstice falls on December 21 or 22.) The Sol Invictus festival has a "strong claim on the responsibility" for the date of Christmas, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Several early Christian writers connected the rebirth of the sun to the birth of Jesus. "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born," Cyprian wrote.

Yule

Pagan Scandinavia celebrated a winter festival called Yule, held in the late December to early January period. Yule logs were lit to honor Thor, the god of thunder, with the belief that each spark from the fire represented a new pig or calf that would be born during the coming year. Feasting would continue until the log burned out, which could take as many as twelve days. In pagan Germania (not to be confused with Germany), the equivalent holiday was the mid-winter night which was followed by 12 "wild nights", filled with eating, drinking and partying. As Northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, its pagan celebrations had a major influence on Christmas. Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul. In English, the Germanic word Yule is synonymous with Christmas,a usage first recorded in 900.

Origin of Christian festival

It is unknown exactly when or why December 25 became associated with Jesus' birth. The New Testament does not give a specific date. Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Jesus was born on December 25 in his Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in AD 221. This date is nine months after the traditional date of the Incarnation (March 25), now celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation. March 25 was also considered to be the date of the vernal equinox and therefore the creation of Adam. Early Christians believed March 25 was also the date Jesus was crucified. The Christian idea that Jesus was conceived on the same date that he died on the cross is consistent with a Jewish belief that a prophet lived an integral number of years.

The identification of the birthdate of Jesus did not at first inspire feasting or celebration. Tertullian does not mention it as a major feast day in the Church of Roman Africa. In 245, the theologian Origen denounced the idea of celebrating Jesus' birthday "as if he were a king pharaoh." He contended that only sinners, not saints, celebrated their birthdays.

The earliest reference to the celebration of Christmas is in the Calendar of Filocalus, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome in 354. In the east, meanwhile, Christians celebrated the birth of Jesus as part of Epiphany (January 6), although this festival focused on the baptism of Jesus.

Christmas was promoted in the east as part of the revival of Catholicism following the death of the pro-Arian Emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. The feast was introduced to Constantinople in 379, to Antioch in about 380, and to Alexandria in about 430. Christmas was especially controversial in 4th century Constantinople, being the "fortress of Arianism," as Edward Gibbon described it. The feast disappeared after Gregory of Nazianzus resigned as bishop in 381, although it was reintroduced by John Chrysostom in about 400.

The short answer is basically Christmas is derived from the winter solstace that was celebrated since the Neolithic period.

Who cares what people call him. If "Christians" only did as the man directed (turn the other cheek, kindness to strangers, don't be judgmental etc..) we would not have so many problems in the world. We'd still have the Muslims though... 1 down 2 to go....

The bible and its tales have many flaws, but the historical and scientific accuracy of the text are not important. The man or legend or myth, whatever you want to refer to him as, is simply a teacher.

If you read through the bible with an open, interpretive mind you will understand that its not about bringing people back from the dead or ascending magically into heaven, its simply about bettering our race and learning to treat other people with respect and dignity. Its a simple message that is lost in a constant flow of criticism from intellectuals and misinterpretation by holy men and fundamentalists.

The bible and its tales have many flaws, but the historical and scientific accuracy of the text are not important. The man or legend or myth, whatever you want to refer to him as, is simply a teacher.

If you read through the bible with an open, interpretive mind you will understand that its not about bringing people back from the dead or ascending magically into heaven, its simply about bettering our race and learning to treat other people with respect and dignity. Its a simple message that is lost in a constant flow of criticism from intellectuals and misinterpretation by holy men and fundamentalists.

+1 to all of the above...

Who cares what people call him. If "Christians" only did as the man directed (turn the other cheek, kindness to strangers, don't be judgmental etc..) we would not have so many problems in the world. We'd still have the Muslims though... 1 down 2 to go....

1) Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet.

2) All Abrahamic gods basically tell their followers the same things. Islam and Christianity included.

_____
www.theadvertforum.com <--Free advertising and spammercaust

1) Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet.

2) All Abrahamic gods basically tell their followers the same things. Islam and Christianity included.

_____
www.theadvertforum.com <--Free advertising and spammercaust

The lessons have variations from religion to religion. Trying to lump all three of those faiths together tends to insult their adherents, and rightfully so as there are differences. Anyway my point still stands... one would approach a Jew and a Muslim in different ways as those religions tend to be more legalistic.

The bible and its tales have many flaws, but the historical and scientific accuracy of the text are not important. The man or legend or myth, whatever you want to refer to him as, is simply a teacher.

If you read through the bible with an open, interpretive mind you will understand that its not about bringing people back from the dead or ascending magically into heaven, its simply about bettering our race and learning to treat other people with respect and dignity. Its a simple message that is lost in a constant flow of criticism from intellectuals and misinterpretation by holy men and fundamentalists.

This is the problem with the bible. If you read the shit you can interpret WHAT ever you want from it. It is the way it is written. Like a horoscope it is so generalized and NEEDS to be interpreted that you can ........ convince your flock that you cannot suffer a witch a live ......... Tell them we must reclaim the holy land no matter the cost ......... convince a world superpower to support a bullshit state (Israel), and anything else you want or can get away with at the time.

You can interpret ANYTHING you want from this book. That makes it about as useful as my sunday horoscope. :)

This is the problem with the bible. If you read the shit you can interpret WHAT ever you want from it. It is the way it is written. Like a horoscope it is so generalized and NEEDS to be interpreted that you can ........ convince your flock that you cannot suffer a witch a live ......... Tell them we must reclaim the holy land no matter the cost ......... convince a world superpower to support a bullshit state (Israel), and anything else you want or can get away with at the time.

You can interpret ANYTHING you want from this book. That makes it about as useful as my sunday horoscope. :)

The New testament is a fair bit clearer with its message then the old testament, which is part of why Jesus was sent (in theory)-To abolish the ridiculous laws and practices that Judasitic society was forcing upon its people at the time.

The New testament is a fair bit clearer with its message then the old testament, which is part of why Jesus was sent (in theory)-To abolish the ridiculous laws and practices that Judasitic society was forcing upon its people at the time.

Didn't he say that he didn't come to abolish the old laws or something? I think that after one of the apostles said circumcision wasn't necessary Jesus compared him with the anti-christ and said he wasn't allowed to do that.

The lessons have variations from religion to religion. Trying to lump all three of those faiths together tends to insult their adherents, and rightfully so as there are differences. Anyway my point still stands... one would approach a Jew and a Muslim in different ways as those religions tend to be more legalistic.

Of course... Even Christian sects and Muslim sects and Jewish sects have varied bits and pieces, but the main points therein are basically the same.

-Be good to your neighbors.
-Sacrifice pleases your god.
-Pray and worship.
-You are being observed, and...
-...if the god doesn't like what you're doing, you go to hell and suffer.
-Your belief is right, the other beliefs are wrong.

In fact... All religions have these traits in common, and while "hell" is not used in every instance, there is definitely a sense of punishment.

Also, yes, I know the word "hell" is never used in the Bible, and that there's wide misconception/misunderstanding/misinformation.

_____
www.theadvertforum.com

If I remember correctly, he ascended to Heaven after speaking a bit with his closest followers about their future mission.

If I also remember correctly, Jesus isn't even a name, it means 'Saviour' or something in it's Greek and is a title. I've heard one account that his name (Anglicized) of course was Joshua. Jeshua or something would be a bit closer to the real deal.

"Jesus" is an Anglicization of the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous), itself a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning "YHWH is salvation". "Christ" is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Christos), "the anointed one", a translation of the Hebrew "Messiah".

The bible and its tales have many flaws, but the historical and scientific accuracy of the text are not important. The man or legend or myth, whatever you want to refer to him as, is simply a teacher.

If you read through the bible with an open, interpretive mind you will understand that its not about bringing people back from the dead or ascending magically into heaven, its simply about bettering our race and learning to treat other people with respect and dignity. Its a simple message that is lost in a constant flow of criticism from intellectuals and misinterpretation by holy men and fundamentalists.

Then why bother with all the bullshit? God should have just written a treatise on humanism.

"Yeshua" would be its correct pronunciation. It makes little difference about what you call him because its universally understannd who you are talking about when you say "Jesus" (unless you are live in a Hispanic country where everyone and their brother is names Jesus. In which case its "jesuchristo")

That's the one. I was trying to help the OP point out that Christian's haven't got the fellow's name right, because I thought it was interesting, if not irelevant.

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings, and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity."

H.P Lovcraft

Jesus Christ and a lot of other "sun" based gods have the circle with a cross through it as their symbol.

It is basically a pagan symbol which is the Zodiac. The circle is the sun in the middle, the 12 major constellations surrounding it, and the cross splitting it up into the 4 seasons.

The bible is ironically a scientifically based document, mostly astronomical.

The reason why they think he will come again is really strange however. Jesus says himself that he will "be with them until the end of the age" or the end of his personification of star sign (Jesus was pieces, or the two fish) and at the end of this age they should "Follow the man bearing a pitcher of water into his house" or, literally follow onto the next constellation in the cycle which is Aquarius, and is shown to be a man baring water into his "house" or star sign.

Most Sun based gods die and are then resurrected 3 days later due to the path the sun follows in the sky. Late in the year it hangs at its lowest point or "dies" underneath the Crux star constellation, 3 days later it shifts its path and begins to rise in the sky again, thus being "resurrected"

Jesus Christ and a lot of other "sun" based gods have the circle with a cross through it as their symbol.

It is basically a pagan symbol which is the Zodiac. The circle is the sun in the middle, the 12 major constellations surrounding it, and the cross splitting it up into the 4 seasons.

The bible is ironically a scientifically based document, mostly astronomical.

The reason why they think he will come again is really strange however. Jesus says himself that he will "be with them until the end of the age" or the end of his personification of star sign (Jesus was pieces, or the two fish) and at the end of this age they should "Follow the man bearing a pitcher of water into his house" or, literally follow onto the next constellation in the cycle which is Aquarius, and is shown to be a man baring water into his "house" or star sign.

Most Sun based gods die and are then resurrected 3 days later due to the path the sun follows in the sky. Late in the year it hangs at its lowest point or "dies" underneath the Crux star constellation, 3 days later it shifts its path and begins to rise in the sky again, thus being "resurrected"

Looks like someone knows their Zeitgeist ;)

Looks like someone knows their Zeitgeist ;)

Looks like someone does :D

Doesn't take away from the fact it is fact :)

Everyone should watch it, amazing documentary.

Looks like someone does :D

Doesn't take away from the fact it is fact :)

Everyone should watch it, amazing documentary.

A significant portion of it isn't, and the information one can find usually contradicts itself; ESPECIALLY the information in part one.

If I remember correctly, he ascended to Heaven after speaking a bit with his closest followers about their future mission.

If I also remember correctly, Jesus isn't even a name, it means 'Saviour' or something in it's Greek and is a title. I've heard one account that his name (Anglicized) of course was Joshua. Jeshua or something would be a bit closer to the real deal.

No, Jesus is his name, Christ means savior. This is why you sometimes hear people calling him 'The Christ'