I'm curious to know if/when Original Position reads this if he will take this as a serious request.

Nah, that's just temp-banning.

I have that album.

It is somewhat reasonable to claim that Jesus didn't call himself the Messiah, but the 250+ years comment is just historically ignorant. Josephus, a non-Christian, probably referred to a "Jesus, who was called Christ," a mere 60 years after Jesus' death in his history of the Jews.

I'll take your word for that. It's still a name made up based on religious belief

It's not a name as much as it is a title.

Naw, the Christ Being was known throughout the mystery centers including esoteric Judaism and they all knew He was coming.

the difficulty is that the man born at the beginning of our era, or better known as Jesus of Nazareth, was human, all human, and in fact was a great leader (if not the greatest) of Mankind in other ages and known as Zarathustra to the Persians, Nazarathos to the Greeks and had been a teacher of Moses.

The nomen "Christ"( on earth) did not come to manifestation until this Jesus of Nazareth under went the Baptism by John the Baptist when at which time the Christ Being, not human, not man, entered into the bodies of Jesus of Nazareth, lived for three years as Man, underwent death and completely turned the evolutionary cycle of the earth onto the magnificent direction of redemption.

Having conquered "death" He now becomes a template for the continued evolution of the human soul, the "immortal" human soul. Truth is, there is no historical evidence of the existence of such a Being if considered in the manner of present scholarship. the three synoptic Gospels were written by men of initiate consciousness from particular viewpoints relative to their mystery centers. The fourth Gospel, that of John is the only eye witness of this event as John, writer of the Gospel and the Revelation and I believe the Acts of the Apostles is the "Risen Lazareus" the first Christian initiation be accomplished by Christ Jesus, Himself.

You're right, Christ and Jesus of Nazareth are two different entities but in his own way Jesus of Nazareth, through his sacrifice (there is one) of offering hisself up to the spiritual world is a world savior through which the Being, Christ, manifested.

The sacrifice of Christ Jesus was not only a redemptive act for earthly humans but also for the spiritual world.

Great guitarist.

I think you guys are being taken for a ride.

Aaron.W wrote: Furthermore, language changes over time, so that different word choices are more reasonable at different moments in history even within the same language.

Sorry - but a quote is a quote. If the Angel of the Lord said: "Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy" that is what he said. If someone then wishes to explain it he must add something like: What the angel meant was: 'Don't be a frit. I've god some good news!'

But what possible reason can their be for re-writing something which is 100% obvious to anyone who can read English? It's not as if the word 'behold' is no longer in common use.

Well, if you want to play "a quote is a quote" then the angle said:

*Note that the angel actually said it using greek letters and that a proper transcription would also involve some accents and other markings.

Mostly, you're just being really obstinate in your view (to the point of appearing to be quite ignorant -- which is especially bad given your journalism background) of the particular issues involved in translations.

I'm curious to know who you talk to who walks around saying "behold" regularly. Do you feel the same way about the usage of "lo"? Or the sentence structure "Fear not"?

So you're saying it's a religious thing

Go figure

Its also a matter of knowledge, like it or not--but of course religion is about knowledge in contradistinction of the so called separation of science and religion.

I've heard that he puts on a great show in live concerts, even though he's approach 80 years old. (I've never been to one.)

Jesus Christ.

After Jerusalem got wiped out during the 70 a.d. revolt that ended in Masada in 73 a.d., there were two other Jewish revolts against Rome...

The Kitos War of 115 to 117 a.d.

Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132 to 135 a.d.

The Christians didn't show up for these two revolts because, according to them, they already had a Messiah and his name was Jesus Christ. Yes, they got pacified with the new religion called Christianity.

The Romans didn't have any idea that what they had created was a religion that would dominate the world for the next 2,000 years. All they wanted was just to pacify the Jews, and sure enough, the ones that got turned into believers didn't even bother to join the other two revolts.

Of the three, the Kitos War was the biggest. No Christians there.

Why did the Romans persecute Christians if they wanted the Jews to convert?

The persecution of Christians happened much much later, long after the deaths of Vespasian and Titus, the Emperors that according to the video Caesar's Messiah "created" Christianity with the intention of pacifying the Jews. My guess is that they weren't thinking that far ahead. They probably had no idea that Christianity would turn out to be that big. They were just interested in pacifying them during their lifetimes.

Remember that the Temple had just been leveled by these two caesar's (Vespasian and Titus). This temple was where the Jews prayed to their God since 560 something b.c. It left a vacuum. In terms of Judaism, it lead to the creation of Rabbinic Judaism, which is based on having many Synagogues - this is how it is today.

But by creating a peaceful religion that would "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" and that emphasized "turning the other cheek", a new religion was created. Then it took a life on its own to where it created its own fanatics.

Realize that Rome had decent amount of religious freedom. As long as you made offerings to their god Jupiter, you can practice your own religion in private or even in public. You didn't necessarily have to be sincere in your Jupiter worship. Just do that offering and then leave.

While the other religions (paganism mostly) would humor Rome, the Christians would not and they would not do it fanatically. This turned them into pests once they reached a certain mass. Hence the prosecutions that started decades after the death of the Flavian emperors (Vespasian and Titus).

Oh, and I don't think that they created Christianity from scratch. I believe that there may have already been a nucleus to work with. Perhaps, there was a Jesus-like guy who got executed...and they just built on it.

How do you square that Vespasian and Titus have "created" Christianity but their predecessor Nero already persecuted Christians?

The source of this was a historian named Tacitus. He was born in 56 a.d. The "burning of Rome" happened in 64 a.d. This was the time when Nero supposedly killed a lot of Christians because he blamed the burning of Rome on them.

Notice that Tacitus was only 8 years old when this event happened. He wrote about it in books that were published after 100 a.d.

Tacitus

The Great Fire of Rome

Clearly, you shouldn't trust historians who write about things that happened when they were 8 years old and publish in their 40s. Those folks are completely unreliable.

What's your point?

Mets, I remember reading an article complaining when news organizations and politicians refer to "The Prophet Muhammad," saying that the term assumes that Muhammad is the prophet.

What are your thoughts on that.

I'm curious to know who you talk to who walks around saying "behold" regularly. Do you feel the same way about the usage of "lo"? Or the sentence structure "Fear not"?

Indeed. I think that 95% of fluent English speakers understand those words and phrases.

Presumably you think that all of Shakespeare's plays should be re-written! And 'The Ides of March' should be altered to: March 15th, or 3/15...

It's true! http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com

"But there is one really interesting thing that links all of those historians together – Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus, and Dio – the people who talk about this character Jesus Christ and about Christians. They are all Flavian court historians, every one. And every one of them also took the position that the Jewish messianic prophecies foresaw not a Jew but the Flavian Caesar. Every one of them recorded that insane and incredible concept. So when you look at the gospels and you look at my work you see that they were definitely produced in the Flavian compound. Somehow this group was able to generate this literature. So the literature just is a false history. It is a fiction about a character living in 30 to 33."

But that's not what you said.

It's not in common usage. That doesn't mean that people don't understand it, or can't be taught what these words mean. But that's a completely different metric than usage.

Shakespeare's works are not a translation. A re-write is substantially different from a re-translation. Do you still not realize the distinction? Even with your journalism background?

Suppose you interviewed someone in French, and you recorded it in audio. You translate it and use it in an article using 2014 English. 150 years later, someone is going through some archives and finds the recording. And they translate it into 2164 English.

* Do you think both translations will be exactly the same?
* Do you think this process is different from quoting your article?

If you still can't see the difference, then maybe you really do have no clue. Otherwise, I think you're just trying to save face (and you're failing at it).