The Factuals versus the NABS (New Age BullShit)

B.B.Baghor


B.B.Baghor
Posts: 765
Join date: 2014-01-31
Age: 64
Location: The Netherlands

• Post n°166

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

B.B.Baghor Yesterday at 8:57 am
Here's some music to bring the MoA to life, although this may be perceived in a sound of silence.
If I'm wise responding on this, we may come to know, but I'm free to share my view as much as you,
Thuban folks and other members here. I choose to give it my best. I myself haven't noticed anyone here
believing in a flat earth, only presenting the existence of people believing in its flatness. Points of view,
standing on a flat surface or a rounded one, doesn's lessen our humanness and worth as human beings.
I believe in shaping our reality by the way we look at the source of creation, the sun, through our own
sunglasses, triple eyed or two eyed ones. (mudra's superb post with that image here, called "sunglasses
for the enlightend").

I refer to the exchange of posts between mudra, malletzky and me, at the end of yesterday's post by Raven,
the one I respond to today. I sincerely make a request for viewing posts of others hear with respect and be
open to perceive them differently. Not by force, but by an attitude of openness and freedom to live and let live.
Being free to share whatever view and opinion we have, doesn't mean we can belittle others, specially not in
the, to my opinion, safe hiding place of chat room conversations. The easiest and most comfortable way of
being right, is talking to yourself or with those agreeing with you in every comma and dot.

The way I'm seeing some of you Thubans going about, in your chat conversations, when sharing views on
the Thuban religious rules, is exactly the same as those men with very grave faces, I witnessed as a young
girl, present in the church circles my father was a minister of. I've listened, fascinated, to such conversations,
wondering about if these men were for real. For they didn't show up as being human themselves, see?

It's clear to my inner screech owl, that I do have an opinion, but that's not related to the Thuban religion itself,
for until now I can't see how I could possibly have made an understanding of it. (here's a glitch maybe) I refer
to the way other members here, outside the Thuban world, and their posts are discussed in these chatroom
conversations, shared often to great lengths. To what purpose, really? It's not the first time I'm on this.

It's my view, that you're shooting in your own foot, each time you discuss other members here in disrespectful ways,
And I see no effort to build any probable respect, trustworthyness and openness, towards others here and in others,
engaging in this material and support feeling at ease, not in joining, but in the freedom to discuss it with you.
Has it ever occurred to you, that (my image) being sort of "on an island" is strenghtening your being right, creating
an inbreeding of views that grow aenemic with time, in that way?

I'm not insensitive or disinterested in your view and opinion about me and my posts here, I'm not stepping in the
cage of so called "untouchable royalty of being above human emotions". Mother Superior knows all about that and
is laughingly calling herself Mother Stupidior, sometimes. Even now, while writing this, for I may find out my
post is nothing more than "pearls thrown for the sw... uhmmm dragons, of course. Oh, they love them, isn't it?

In my post here, I only want to impress on you, that sneering at posters and their posts, discussed in chatroom
conversations, the one in ravens post of yesterday and former ones, you not only show disrespect, but a neglect
of practicing self-reflection in your attitude towards them, here, out in the open. Freedom is living up to your own
truth and not try to make others join you in it. I'm finding some inconvenient truth, writing this post

When I would feel confident and think it worthwhile to live with my views on life, including a respect for views on
and forms of life expressions, how could I choose to live with my own righteousness of philosophies and views,
within my "self-fabricated" aka unique flavor of a religion and not ever consider this as as much fantasy as the,
by your view declared fantasy, of believing in a flat earth? Or any other belief, shared about here?

Aren't we witnessing the manipulation of manmade religions, these days? I suggest you present your Thuban
views and opinions in a way that they can be enjoyed or felt as inspiration. Or as a healthy challenge, in acting
as worthy opponents, living for the truth and not for being right. I know you've said, in one of the chatroom con-
versations, that you WANT to confuse the MoA members. I wonder if you're willing to explain what you mean by
that and to hear from you if that's beneficial to your heart's desire, or any other desire, shilo.

I'm honestly willing to see come true what benefits are in it for others here, regarding the views and opinions, shared
by MoA members here, from within the Thuban worldview. Or from within all of your MoA member's worlds, present
here with them. Mine included. I see no lenghty discussions happening, on this subject, I wish there were more
members here giving their views. Uhmmm, screeeech, this is a learning curve for me


Sanicle

Sanicle

Posts: 1661
Join date: 2011-02-28
Location: Melbourne, Australia

• Post n°167

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

Sanicle Yesterday at 12:50 pm

You go for it BB. You are a sweet unicorn AND a dragon warrior all in one. Seems like a pretty good balance to me.​

Enlarge this imageReduce this image Click to see fullsize
​

... a great outworking of the Uranus/Pluto square for you BB. Not so much for the Thubans though it seems. I think they're still stuck in Pluto energy.

​

B.B.Baghor


B.B.Baghor
Posts: 765
Join date: 2014-01-31
Age: 64
Location: The Netherlands

• Post n°168

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

B.B.Baghor Yesterday at 3:08 pm


Such splendor, that picture of the Unicorn Dragon. An evergreen for you, Sanicle. Thank you

 

shiloh


shiloh

Posts: 811
Join date: 2011-03-16
Age: 57
Location: Akbar Ra

• Post n°169

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

shiloh Today at 4:07 am

Particular Moabytian Learning Curves​

Re: FLAT EARTH
Post Vidya Moksha Yesterday at 8:24 pm

B.B.Baghor wrote: It's such fun to see how you and other members go about it, with me included
Lmfao

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5_GlAOCHyE​

Did you notice that the clouds in this video didnt move AT ALL... if you read the original links as provided thats one of the key points, its all faked footage. One of the contributors used to fake footage for a living.
Im with seashore on this, please debunk the theories with other ones but dont just laugh for the sake of it. This thread has already seen the worst of the mists with Raven's poor taste and judgement, dont add to it.

[2:43:06 AM-March 26th, 2015] Sirius 17: scientific reasoning is poor taste
[3:03:19 AM] Sirius 17: whoever made this flat earth conspiracy documentary doesn't know shi20 about physics and how light behaves and refraction, ect ect omg
[3:03:42 AM] Sirius 17: and apparently neither do the moabytes
[3:04:30 AM] Sirius 17: if they would even do one simple experiment with light they would see this is simply not true. No light doesn't bend but it DOES reflect and refract
[3:05:44 AM] Sirius 17: seashore put images from the video of why the earth is not curved because light from the horizon would not be visible lol
[3:05:51 AM] Sirius 17: hahaha
[3:06:02 AM] Sirius 17: fuc11ing hell
[6:22:32 AM] Sirius 17: http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t7814p45-flat-earth#110274
[6:22:36 AM] Sirius 17: i replied to her bs
[7:10:41 AM] Sirius 17: i transferred more of that thread over including my post
[7:10:46 AM] Sirius 17: and her replies lol
[9:34:08 AM] Sirius 17: http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t6759p165-the-factuals-versus-the-nabs oh wow i missed this long reply by bb
[9:34:38 AM] Sirius 17: she seems to be offended because i said fuc11 a few times i guess
[9:34:58 AM] Sirius 17: and exclaimed how i can't believe how scientifically challenged they all are
[9:35:36 AM] Sirius 17: which is saddly true

[11:41:28 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: The Newtonian flat space has light travelling in a straight line of course in FLAT space, often called Euclidean space to distinguish it from say a 'curved' triangle drawn onto a spherical surface. The angles of a drawn triangle, any triangle add to 180 degrees in flat surface space, but are more than 180 degree on the surface of a ball say. Anyone can go into the garden or garage and pick up a ball and draw such a triangle onto some ball (golf, tennis, basketball or football) and check this simple fact of geometry.
Furthermore celestial mechanics or astrophysics simply requires a maximum efficiency of orbs orbiting around each other under gravity and this efficiency is from 'Mother Nature' and not the human observational mind and relates to how to compress information in a given volume of space. This volume is a sphere and not some flat disk or prism as can be easily shown and derived by basic maximum-minimum calculus.

[11.43:02 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: The entire realisation of what gravity is and that gravity does not depend on transmission of a force between separated masses in the 'action at a distance' motto, was that the curvature of space replaces the straight line of Newton's lightray by a GEODESIC, which are 'great circles' of geometry, say having the center of the Earth as a common locus point of the trace. You can 'squash' a circle, which will create a double focus in elliptical orbits of celestial orbs around gravitational centres and 'centres of mass-inertia'. Johannes Kepler and Galileo figured this out 500 years ago, something the 'flat earthers' and the 'hollow earthers' and the 'artificial moon lunatics' have yet to accomplish.
Really I don't know why you bother with such human selfdelusions as expressed on that mutually backslapping thread.


Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

B.B.Baghor Yesterday at 8:57 am
Here's some music to bring the MoA to life, although this may be perceived in a sound of silence.
If I'm wise responding on this, we may come to know, but I'm free to share my view as much as you,
Thuban folks and other members here. I choose to give it my best. I myself haven't noticed anyone here
believing in a flat earth, only presenting the existence of people believing in its flatness. Points of view,
standing on a flat surface or a rounded one, doesn's lessen our humanness and worth as human beings.
I believe in shaping our reality by the way we look at the source of creation, the sun, through our own
sunglasses, triple eyed or two eyed ones. (mudra's superb post with that image here, called "sunglasses
for the enlightend").

I refer to the exchange of posts between mudra, malletzky and me, at the end of yesterday's post by Raven,
the one I respond to today. I sincerely make a request for viewing posts of others hear with respect and be
open to perceive them differently. Not by force, but by an attitude of openness and freedom to live and let live.
Being free to share whatever view and opinion we have, doesn't mean we can belittle others, specially not in
the, to my opinion, safe hiding place of chat room conversations. The easiest and most comfortable way of
being right, is talking to yourself or with those agreeing with you in every comma and dot.

The way I'm seeing some of you Thubans going about, in your chat conversations, when sharing views on
the Thuban religious rules, is exactly the same as those men with very grave faces, I witnessed as a young
girl, present in the church circles my father was a minister of. I've listened, fascinated, to such conversations,
wondering about if these men were for real. For they didn't show up as being human themselves, see?

It's clear to my inner screech owl, that I do have an opinion, but that's not related to the Thuban religion itself,
for until now I can't see how I could possibly have made an understanding of it. (here's a glitch maybe) I refer
to the way other members here, outside the Thuban world, and their posts are discussed in these chatroom
conversations, shared often to great lengths. To what purpose, really? It's not the first time I'm on this.

It's my view, that you're shooting in your own foot, each time you discuss other members here in disrespectful ways,
And I see no effort to build any probable respect, trustworthyness and openness, towards others here and in others,
engaging in this material and support feeling at ease, not in joining, but in the freedom to discuss it with you.
Has it ever occurred to you, that (my image) being sort of "on an island" is strenghtening your being right, creating
an inbreeding of views that grow aenemic with time, in that way?

I'm not insensitive or disinterested in your view and opinion about me and my posts here, I'm not stepping in the
cage of so called "untouchable royalty of being above human emotions". Mother Superior knows all about that and
is laughingly calling herself Mother Stupidior, sometimes. Even now, while writing this, for I may find out my
post is nothing more than "pearls thrown for the sw... uhmmm dragons, of course. Oh, they love them, isn't it?

In my post here, I only want to impress on you, that sneering at posters and their posts, discussed in chatroom
conversations, the one in ravens post of yesterday and former ones, you not only show disrespect, but a neglect
of practicing self-reflection in your attitude towards them, here, out in the open. Freedom is living up to your own
truth and not try to make others join you in it. I'm finding some inconvenient truth, writing this post

When I would feel confident and think it worthwhile to live with my views on life, including a respect for views on
and forms of life expressions, how could I choose to live with my own righteousness of philosophies and views,
within my "self-fabricated" aka unique flavor of a religion and not ever consider this as as much fantasy as the,
by your view declared fantasy, of believing in a flat earth? Or any other belief, shared about here?

Aren't we witnessing the manipulation of manmade religions, these days? I suggest you present your Thuban
views and opinions in a way that they can be enjoyed or felt as inspiration. Or as a healthy challenge, in acting
as worthy opponents, living for the truth and not for being right.I know you've said, in one of the chatroom con-
versations, that you WANT to confuse the MoA members. I wonder if you're willing to explain what you mean by
that and to hear from you if that's beneficial to your heart's desire, or any other desire, shilo.

I'm honestly willing to see come true what benefits are in it for others here, regarding the views and opinions, shared
by MoA members here, from within the Thuban worldview. Or from within all of your MoA member's worlds, present
here with them. Mine included. I see no lenghty discussions happening, on this subject, I wish there were more
members here giving their views. Uhmmm, screeeech, this is a learning curve for me

It does seem your 'learning curve' is somewhat limited in your own self positioning as a selfcreated 'mother superior' aka 'abbess de imagination de humanis' - triple Bee Be.
This is exemplified in your selective critique as to the highlighted quoted "..WANT to Confuse the moabytes...".
As is so often the case with humans, who imagine to know more than they actually do or are capable of processing with their human cortextual perceptions; you failed to read the second and third line about the ''"WANTING to Confuse the moabytes...". Should you have done so, you would or could have realised that your judgement about a perceived judgement was no judgement at all, but simply a sequitur of observation relative to the Thuban nous and understanding about the Moabyte mentality and posting patterns.
Below you can reevaluate your human judgement about the Thuban judgement of the Plutonian Hades across the River Styx into the Underworld of the Dragons associated with Charon the Ferryman across the abyss of the human and not the Draconian arrogances.

...[10:34:01 AM-March 3rd, 2015] 666: he got this from you
[10:34:10 AM] Sirius 17: yes but he agreed with it although in his nabs version way as relating Thuban to the Annunaki
[10:34:12 AM] 666: it is a work of plagiarization
[10:34:13 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Raven you get this now? Why I was giggling, as soon as I saw it?
[10:34:26 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Haha
[10:34:29 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Lol
[10:34:43 AM] Sirius 17: yeah
[10:34:47 AM] Sirius 17: I got it
[10:35:03 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: I advertised his work, do you think he finds this as stealing?
[10:35:21 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: I WANT to confuse the moabytes
[10:35:33 AM] Sirius 17: no idea but he did use our material so tit for tat
[10:35:35 AM]Shiloh Za-Rah: BECAUSE they are already confused with nabs shi20
[10:36:06 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: There is NOTHING we could say to confuse those morons more
[10:36:11 AM] Sirius 17: a lot of how this Wes guy assessed Thuban was right on the money but with the nabs intermixed
[10:36:11 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Look at the whale post
[10:36:18 AM] Sirius 17: this is where you must discern
[10:36:23 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Bobbie understood perfectly well on facebook
[10:36:24 AM] Sirius 17: and at this point, few can
[10:36:36 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: BBB made a big fuss of how unreadable it is
[10:36:38 AM] Sirius 17: yes she did
[10:37:03 AM] Sirius 17: because their minds are nabs polluted and so they can't make heads or tails of the data
[10:37:15 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: This PROVED that further real data sharing there would be futile
[10:37:39 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: So the delusions must fall on their own heads, as say per Isaiah
[10:38:31 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: FYI Isaiah is the dragon book in the OT and utmost futuristic. More so then even Revelation
[10:39:03 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Isaiah describes the New World throughout; Revelation only in the last chapter 22
[10:39:25 AM] Sirius 17: so I guess what Shiloh is saying is that it matters not what we say to 'clarify' they already have their minds made up
[10:39:51 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Of course and in particular I wanted to get at Seashore's 'controlling' nous
[10:39:55 AM] Sirius 17: and whatever we say will make no difference
...

Perhaps the following presentation from a 'sceptical atheist' and a projected 'believer' will help the science- and mathematically 'challenged' Moabyte nabsers to enhance their 'learning curves'.

A Dragon Scribe for the Cosmic Unicorn
To help the 'learning curves' and following 20 years of particular 'confusions'!
​

70 years of the Babylonian captivity so add the 'forsaken period' from 608 BC to 586 BC, when king Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem until the 'Edict of Cyrus' in 538 BC, coded in 2Chronicles.36.1-23.
390 dayyears from 586 BC lead to the year 196 BC, from which the 22 years from 608 BC to 586 BC are subtracted for the yearweek of confusion encoded in the period 174 BC to 167 BC.
The 390 years are encoded in DSC 4Q268.Frag.1 and where also the 20 year duration is specified.

"For when they were unfaithful and forsook Him, He hid His face from Israel and His Sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword. But remembering the covenant of the forefathers, He left a remnant to Israel and did not deliver it up to be destroyed.
And in the age of wrath, 390 years after He had given them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, He visited them, and He caused a plant root to spring from Israel and Aaron to inherit His Land and to prosper on the good things of His earth. And they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for 20 years they were like blind men groping for the way." -Translation by Geza Vermes.

​

_________________
Shiloh Za-RaH

I Am the Darkness of the Purple Dawn and the Light of the Moon Turquoise!



Bluey Dracs
The Presence of the Mosaic implies the will of Unity=God=Starhumanity and not the will of Humanity=Man=Separation!
I Am One in Many and Many in One!
Exe*=1

 

B.B.Baghor


B.B.Baghor
Posts: 768
Join date: 2014-01-31
Age: 64
Location: The Netherlands

• Post n°170

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

B.B.Baghor Today at 10:56 pm
Shiloh's words:

"As is so often the case with humans, who imagine to know more than they actually do or are capable of processing with their human cortextual perceptions; you failed to read the second and third line about the ''"WANTING to Confuse the moabytes...". Should you have done so, you would or could have realised that your judgement about a perceived judgement was no judgement at all, but simply a sequitur of observation relative to the Thuban nous and understanding about the Moabyte mentality and posting patterns.
Below you can reevaluate your human judgement about the Thuban judgement of the Plutonian Hades across the River Styx into the Underworld of
the Dragons associated with Charon the Ferryman across the abyss of the human and not the Draconian arrogances.

[10:35:21 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: I WANT to confuse the moabytes
[10:35:33 AM] Sirius 17: no idea but he did use our material so tit for tat
[10:35:35 AM]Shiloh Za-Rah: BECAUSE they are already confused with nabs shi20
[10:36:06 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: There is NOTHING we could say to confuse those morons more

Shiloh, I'm going to try to stick to the facts here, for otherwise this discussion is a perpetual argumentation,
in efforts of sorting out each other's rights and wrongs. Possibly only the other's wrongs and our own rights
I'm honestly willing to accept your exploring of truth in the Thuban world and your choice of style in finding it, although
I can't see much light for understanding in it. At the time of my reading those lines, now displayed in red, I also went
further and noticed the BECAUSE. That's not been helpful in understanding the WANT, you see?

How can you WANT to confuse..... BECAUSE they are already confused.... ? To what purpose?
Isn't this similar to one step forward and two steps back, for you? Never-ever-getting-THERE?
I don't see the point of it, except that I now know that this is your action by intention.
Again, in other words, for I've found your style of logic earlier, to me it's a position of a teacher,
looking at his disciplined audience, shaking his head in confusion and annoyance. They're all sitting
with headphones on, in order to hear his words. Or so they think they do, with him in it.

He finds himself having a hard time, making himself heard, or so it seems. For little does he know
of the mistake his assistant made, by plugging the headphones of the audience into a different
lecture, now being listened to by that audience. The teacher sits and speaks, unknowingly excluded
from being heard, feeling outside of hearing distance. Thinking that his audience shows up as stupid morons.
Neither they, nor he, are in attunement. And in the presence of mutual confusion, understanding can't enter.
Unless you check with the audience and ask "Do you understand what I'm saying?"

In that sense, I perceive that a large part of your posts are monologues and received as such in silence.
If that's proof of my and other member's confusion or non-resonance with much of your posts, remains
to be seen. I can't really speak for others, going through this thread. Something must be in it for you,
presenting them. This is a way to keep on trucking. The choice may not be easy for you, to change
directions. Or stop and see what happens. What does it take, for you to be present in an openminded
discussion, Shiloh?

 

B.B.Baghor


B.B.Baghor

Posts: 768
Join date: 2014-01-31
Age: 64
Location: The Netherlands

• Post n°59

Re: FLAT EARTH

B.B.Baghor Today at 8:42 pm

mudra wrote:​

​

Raven wrote:

mudra wrote:​

In truth I believe we all have our own model , our own visions of the universe and as we begin to unravel it's building blocks ​

we are then able to see how we made it come to life in the first place.​

Sirius 17: Tony, please answer mrs honeybunny Mudra
Sirius 17:and explain to her that without precise definitions like DNA for example and things called cells with boundries, she would have no lala land in which to contemplate her nebulous nature
Sirius 17: this question of hers is beyond ridiculous

Shiloh Za-Rah: The great nabs fallacy of everyone making their own reality
Shiloh Za-Rah: opinionated bs
Sirius 17: yes and if she were honest with herself she would easily see that this is not how the universe functions, it is not a matter of 'dreaming' about it
Sirius 17: each to his own bs


[3:58:54 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah:

So what ARE those building blocks mudra?

They are NOT whimsicalities of human imaginations

​

The world is held in Consciousness. The physical universe is a product of Consciousness. We are Consciousness.​

Experience the awareness of your true nature which is Consciousness and this will become clear.​

​

​

Love from me​

mudra​

Thank you, mudra, your words here, in greenblue, are wonderfully clear, well put and very beautiful.
The following text, written by Ian Lungold, is copied from your post 51 in the Mayan Prophecies thread here:

"By the Tun calendar, each level of Conscious Evolution is divided by 13 equal sections. Each sequential consciousness cycle
is accelerated by a factor of 20. That is, the creation of all effects in each cycle is multiplied by a factor of 20. We all have
been told by the highest priests of our society, the Quantum Physicists, that the universe is expanding. 20X just could be
the factor by which it is doing so.

What has come to me is; Consciousness, Divides by the factor of 13 and Creation, Multiplies by a factor of 20.

It is consciousness that divides creation into its separate parts. It is only when you are conscious of something(s) that you
can appreciate that part of creation by and with your discernment.

Your life is peppered with moments when you noticed some details of your environment or situation. Like, seeing the
“Veins in the leaf” or the beauty of color and pattern in a butterfly’s wings. Of course you have your own examples but
each of them were the exercise of your consciousness noticing the differences of stimuli available in that moment.
The more conscious you are, the more you can take in effortlessly".

As I'm practicing my dance on the same page with you, mudra, regarding consciousness as the ruler
of form-creation. The full content of Ian Lungolds letter speaks to me, particularily this part, copied in this post.
The weaving of the 13:20 is profoundly wrapped in life's mystery. In the description of the 20 Solar Seals being
the "20 faces of creation" and the 13 Galactic Tones being the "13 melodies of creation" the weaving is present,
as I perceive it.

During pregnancy of human babies, the child grows in the womb during 260 days, a full Tzolkin cycle. In that way,
the child has "seen" the 20 faces of creation in 13 different melodies (and vice versa) in order to create its body,
to begin the journey into an incarnation on planet Earth. Later, when the physical form begins to withdraw a bit
and less dominant present, consciousness expands. At least, that's the idea of life evolving



It's in essence non-linear: when moving away from the center of the Galaxy, in spiraling motion, imagine radial
spokes moving from that center in straight lines, all around it merging with the spiraling form in a geometrical
order. The final destination of those spokes and spirals are, let's say the Sun, planet Earth, Venus, Mars... etc.
Imagine traveling on that spiral, following its form, always in a new position, when touching the radial spoke,
present in its fixed linear position.

Imagine all that as energy, also that which travels along the spiral. For the benefit of understanding, we need to let it
have physical form, as point of view. This spiraling and linear motion is another weaving, a coming to life in consciousness.
For only when that which is infinite is framed, put within boundaries, it can experience itself and all that which is framed
can be defined or find definition of itself through consciousness evolving. Lesson learned, mission accomplished, the deed
is done, God has encountered him/herself within all those creations of self - definition, all mirror reflections.

Welcome home in the presence of infinity, returning to it with the awareness of definition. Maybe that's what sets the next
"in the beginning there was nothing and than it exploded" in motion? Maybe that's part of a much larger duet of spiraling
and linear motion? As I perceive "as above so below" also true in this, I think that's why we need to be grounded, in our body,
connected to the center of planet Earth, in order to reach for the sky and the awareness of our true nature and embodying
of our soul.

The spiraling vortexes of energy, traveling through space, are made visible on the body of a foetus in the womb. These
vortexes move along the hairy fur on its body, creating spiraling formations all over it. One of them remains with us through
our lives, as the place on our head, where the hair grows away from one spot, in a spiraling form. When that spot is
located on the left side of the head, the left brain is predominant in general, as a starting position only, not a fixed condition,
although the position is. Mine is in the middle



_________________
B.B.Baghor


The Hathors view


Raven


Raven

Posts: 477
Join date: 2010-04-10
Age: 47
Location: The Emerald City

• Post n°60

Re: FLAT EARTH

Raven Today at 10:58 pm

The Nature of Consciousness​

http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2692-physical-consciousness-in-a-selfconscious-quantum-universe

For the detailed treatize from Thuban, published in JCER (Journal for Consciousness Exploration Research) Consciousness Journal in March 2011.

shiloh wrote:Tom Campbell's University of Calgary Lectures from September 2011 at Alberta, Canada, appear to be a nice background for Thuban OmniScience.

I have not watched all of this yet, but share it here for reference purposes. Thank you Brook for sharing your links about those lectures on your forum on the Mists of Avalon.

​

Tonyblue


Review of My Big TOE by Thomas Campbell


The one irritating and at first glance a little unfortunate aspect of Thomas Campbell's presentation is his choice of labeling his work under the title of: "My Big Toe".
This is ambiguous, as it renders many casual observers; including me, when I was first introduced to this work by Owlsden and then by Brook; as less than impressed with yet another self-aggrandizing and egocentric attempt of someone attempting to cocreate a new cosmology, often abandoning the history of what has come before in the construction of the cultural edifices and parameters utilized.

Thomas Campbell actually promotes the converse; in calling his work: "My Big TOE!", he in fact does not refer to "His Big TOE", but to "Everyone's Big TOE" in an attempt to individualise the underpinning New OmniScience, based on the nature of consciousness as the fundamental building block or unit and synergizing the 'Physics of the Measurements' via the 'Scientific Method of Reproducibility' and the 'Objectification of all Reality' with the 'Metaphysics of Subjectivity of Individual Experiences'.

And this 'personification' of the Ontology or Origins of the Physics in a Metaphysics, using the Physics of Consciousness to itself evolve and form multiverses from a seedling protoverse and so construct many phaseshifted individualised cosmologies from a common cosmogony is surely brilliant in allowing the uniqueness of the separation to become unified in a oneness of the cosmogenetic origins for all data collectors, data interpreters and information decoders and consciousness units of the 'Many in One and the One in the Many' as a heartthought and mindfelt invitation from Thomas Campbell.

I highly recommend viewing those videos, especially the first two for a grounding in the premises of contemporary terrestrial sciences and how the old paradigm of a fixed measurable physical realism of objectification and disallowing the metaphysics of the subjective experience of the individual cosmic selfhood, must now move aside as a subset of a grander and more encompassing new paradigm or worldview, which has recognised the basic statistical nature of the microcosm and the macrocosm as being quantum relative and quantum mechanical in their nature, evolution and self expression and as an 'a priori' consequence and causality of a physicalised consciousness in the discretisized quantum of creation, also known as the 'Quantum of Cosmic Love'!.

Tonyblue


Regarding the 'Collapse of the Wavefunction' in video #1, here is the Dragon Science to elucidate on the 'measurement-consciousness' problem of the 'Double-Slit' experiment and the Duality and Complementarity of the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of the quantum entanglement.

The Dawn of Space and Time in a Selfconscious Quantum Universe
The Solution to Schrödinger's Cat Paradox


The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics concentrates on a 'classical treatment' of the observer and the observed; leading to a 'collapse of the wavefunction' upon the act of the observation.
This has little to do with the 'quantum phenomenon of entanglement' as is indicated in the Weinberg critique of Copenhagen below.

Summararily, Schrödinger was right in the first instance; BUT this does NOT require a Copenhagen observer.
Schrödinger's Cat is BOTH ALIVE and DEAD as the superposition of quantum selfstates and INDEPENDENT on any classical observer (looking at the cat).
The superposition is the entanglement of the collapsed and the escaped quantum eigenstates.
The cat is a living Particle-Entity with 'consciousness/soul/god' INSIDE as a collapsed wave.
And the cat is a dead Wave-Entity with a 'consciousness/soul/god' OUTSIDE as an escaped wave.
These two eigenstates define QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT of the SIMULTANEOUS CAT, being BOTH a living body and a dead nonbody at the same time.

Why does the human mind find that this is so hard to understand?


Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements.
Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice." and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?" exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".

Steven Weinberg in "Einstein's Mistakes", Physics Today, November 2005, page 31, said:​

​

All this familiar story is true, but it leaves out an irony. Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought. The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe. But these rules are expressed in terms of a wave function (or, more precisely, a state vector) that evolves in a perfectly deterministic way. So where do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen interpretation come from?​

​

Considerable progress has been made in recent years toward the resolution of the problem, which I cannot go into here. It is enough to say that neither Bohr nor Einstein had focused on the real problem with quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wave function, the Schrödinger equation, to observers and their apparatus.​

​

​

The problem of thinking in terms of classical measurements of a quantum system becomes particularly acute in the field of quantum cosmology, where the quantum system is the universe.[16]​

[MIKE] Certainly Schrödinger's thought problem was originally proposed to show the problems with the Copenhagen interpretation, but even today you get the Cat in the box and a few seconds later you read about collapse of the wave function. It still has not really been resolved. As Gribbon said in one of his books is that the problem with QM is that it is too democratic everyone has an opinion on what it means. All of the interpretations you listed above give the same results they just use differing explanations as to what it means, the philosophy as Mac puts it. Feynman had two one was a sum over histories and the other was an electron going forward and back in time to interfere with itself. As Gribbon also wrote no one knows what QM means. We use it like a cookbook knowing if we do this we get that but we have no idea why the ingredients do what they do to get the result.

BTW. It does not get much press, but Eugene Wigner's adaptation to Schrödinger's Cat is much more easily understood. The thought problem is called Wigner's Friend. Substitute a human volunteer for the cat. Do the same experiment. At the conclusion, open the door. If the volunteer is still alive, ie the radioactive particle did not decay and release the poison, ask him to describe the transitional states he was theoretically supposed to experience.


Mike, here is the solution without any OBSERVED COLLAPSE of any wavefunction.
Schrödinger's Cat is BOTH ALIVE and DEAD as the superposition of quantum selfstates and INDEPENDENT on any classical observer (looking at the cat).
The superposition is the entanglement of the collapsed and the escaped quantum eigenstates.
The cat is a living Particle-Entity with 'consciousness/soul/god' INSIDE as a collapsed wave.
And the cat is a dead Wave-Entity with a 'consciousness/soul/god' OUTSIDE as an escaped wave.
These two eigenstates define QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT of the Cat in simultaneity, being BOTH a living body and a dead nonbody at the same time.

Why does the human mind find that this is so hard to understand?

[MIKE] Think about Wigner's friend and you should have your answer.

There is more to it Mike. I didn't ask a question, but stated the superposition as quantum fact and thoroughly without any Many-Worlds of splitting universes.
Wigner's argument engages Consciousness and in that aspect he has hit the 'occuli tauri'; but the basis is that this consciousness itself is superposed.
Below is 'my accomplice' in Roger Penrose.




Consciousness and measurement

Wigner designed the experiment to illustrate his belief that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process. If a material device is substituted for the conscious friend, the linearity of the wave function implies that the state of the system is in a linear sum of possible states. It is simply a larger indeterminate system.
However, a conscious observer (according to his reasoning) must be in either one state or the other, hence conscious observations are different, hence consciousness is material. Wigner discusses this scenario in "Remarks on the mind-body question", one in his collection of essays, Symmetries and Reflections, 1967. The idea has become known as the "Consciousness causes collapse" interpretation.


Consciousness and Superposition

A counterargument is that the superimposition of two conscious states is not paradoxical - just as there is no interaction between the multiple quantum states of a particle, so the superimposed consciousnesses need not be aware of each other.[1]


The state of the observer's perception is considered to be entangled with the state of the cat. The perception state 'I perceive a live cat' accompanies the 'live-cat' state and the perception state 'I perceive a dead cat' accompanies the 'dead-cat' state. [..] It is then assumed that a perceiving being always finds his/her perception state to be in one of these two; accordingly, the cat is, in the perceived world, either alive or dead.[..] I wish to make clear that, as it stands, this is far from a resolution of the cat paradox. For there is nothing in the formalism of quantum mechanics that demands that a state of consciousness cannot involve the simultaneous perception of a live and a dead cat.
-Roger Penrose

This last comment of Roger Penrose nails the quantum paradox. Trouble is, that he doesn't believe his own words.

Council of the Thuban Elders

 

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

Raven Today at 12:01 am

​

[9:33:16 PM | Edited 9:33:31 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Your answer quoting real consciousness science
[9:34:27 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah:

[9:34:37 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: This last comment of Penrose nailed it
[9:35:01 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Trouble is he doesn't believe his own words
[9:35:51 PM] Allisiam: no i suppose most of the physicists don't either
[9:36:00 PM] Allisiam: even though he is right
[9:36:59 PM] Allisiam: what do you think of bb's statements?
[9:37:28 PM] Allisiam: even though she is being general she is seeing a bigger picture than most
[9:38:21 PM] Allisiam:

BBB wrote:​

It's in essence non-linear: when moving away from the center of the Galaxy, in spiraling motion, imagine radial
spokes moving from that center in straight lines, all around it merging with the spiraling form in a geometrical
order. The final destination of those spokes and spirals are, let's say the Sun, planet Earth, Venus, Mars... etc.
Imagine traveling on that spiral, following its form, always in a new position, when touching the radial spoke,
present in its fixed linear position.

Imagine all that as energy, also that which travels along the spiral. For the benefit of understanding, we need to let it
have physical form, as point of view. This spiraling and linear motion is another weaving, a coming to life in consciousness.
For only when that which is infinite is framed, put within boundaries, it can experience itself and all that which is framed
can be defined or find definition of itself through consciousness evolving. Lesson learned, mission accomplished, the deed
is done, God has encountered him/herself within all those creations of self - definition, all mirror reflections.

Welcome home in the presence of infinity, returning to it with the awareness of definition. Maybe that's what sets the next
"in the beginning there was nothing and than it exploded" in motion? Maybe that's part of a much larger duet of spiraling
and linear motion? As I perceive "as above so below" also true in this, I think that's why we need to be grounded, in our body,
connected to the center of planet Earth, in order to reach for the sky and the awareness of our true nature and embodying
of our soul.​

[9:40:24 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Where is this?
[9:40:58 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: I see
[9:41:13 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: I didn't read all of this before
[9:41:37 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: You can commend her lol I am tired of her know betterhood
[9:43:55 PM] Allisiam: oh i thought you saw it before
[9:44:28 PM] Allisiam: and that is why you re-posted the campbell stuff
[9:45:39 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: This above is nabs drivel
[9:45:53 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: But you can see the truth in the words
[9:46:07 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: as above so below etc
[9:46:10 PM] Allisiam: yes i can see she has some understanding
[9:46:19 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: mixed with Fibonacci spirals see?>
[9:46:39 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Nabs understanding yes like mudra
[9:46:46 PM] Allisiam:

BBB wrote: For only when that which is infinite is framed, put within boundaries, it can experience itself and all that which is framed
can be defined or find definition of itself through consciousness evolving.​

this is pretty clear

[9:46:58 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: True
[9:47:14 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: This is not nabsey actually
[9:47:37 PM] Allisiam: no she has some good points 'weaved' in
[9:48:08 PM] Allisiam:

BBB wrote:As I perceive "as above so below" also true in this, I think that's why we need to be grounded, in our body,
connected to the center of planet Earth, in order to reach for the sky and the awareness of our true nature and embodying
of our soul.​

and this is true also

[9:48:17 PM] Allisiam: GOT right there
[9:48:35 PM] Allisiam: as it is all about the body
[9:48:44 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: So show her this
[9:49:02 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: We are not always 'putting her down'
[9:49:16 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Only when she talks BS
[9:49:21 PM] Allisiam: sure

​

​

​

 

B.B.Baghor


B.B.Baghor
Posts: 780
Join date: 2014-01-31
Age: 64
Location: The Netherlands

• Post n°172

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

B.B.Baghor Yesterday at 9:15 am

Quote from former post by Raven on March 26th 2015, 06:01

"BBB wrote:
For only when that which is infinite is framed, put within boundaries, it can experience itself and all that which is framed
can be defined or find definition of itself through consciousness evolving.

this is pretty clear

[9:46:58 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: True
[9:47:14 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: This is not nabsey actually
[9:47:37 PM] Allisiam: no she has some good points 'weaved' in
[9:48:08 PM] Allisiam:




BBB wrote:
As I perceive "as above so below" also true in this, I think that's why we need to be grounded, in our body,
connected to the center of planet Earth, in order to reach for the sky and the awareness of our true nature and embodying
of our soul.
and this is true also

[9:48:17 PM] Allisiam: GOT right there
[9:48:35 PM] Allisiam: as it is all about the body" (end of quote)

If that line in red is meant as appropriate in our present conditions of evolving, I'm okay with that. To me, the body is a
stepping stone (and instrument for me at present) towards new forms of definition and expressions. There's an infinite
variety of forms in the beauty of creation, as I see it. The source of that variety sparks my joy for life.

Knowing that we're all stepping on such stones, is an arrow pointing at the door towards compassion. For we're in the
same boat floating with the many waters going under the bridge. I'm less affected by the style of chatconversations, I notice.
Though I don't train myself to become insensitive to them. This would not only damage my intergrity but yours as well.
If there's integrity experienced within you Thuban folks, which I truly hope. I don't condone that style of yours, when judging
others. We can share how we feel and see what steps of others look like to us. That's form and energy, behind those steps.
Energy is in the realm of spirit, as I see it. Please don't focus on the form, Thuban folks, for if you practice that "as it is all
about the body" in your conduct of creating views, posting and responding to posts here, you're stuck in matter and a view-
point of a material nature. Please ponder this? Mother Superior greets you and graciously gathers her robes, leaving the stage,
stepping down to Earth

Thanks, truly, for a learning experience, also in the difference of ortho's style and yours. I may be wrong, but to me it seems
you're trying to win ortho for your troups, shilo. To me this is you trying to make use of his rocketstove exploring mind, as I see it.
I'm sure that ortho is capable of discerning his peculiar "lack of skill" in doing just that. Now, that's what I call integrity, got it?
It's all about acknowledging the truth, in the moment and not about being right, then, when and there. Or for eternity.

By keeping up with the dance of life, no matter how, it's always bringing us to a destination at some point, place and time.
I wonder sometimes, if there's motion in the Thuban belief system, leading to new insights. In a sense, the Thuban world
seems to be contrary to ortho's exploring world. But I don't need to polarize in order to make my point. After all, aren't you,
in the Thuban world, ortho, me and other Misty members and guests, present on the stepping stones here?

 

Eartheart


Eartheart

Posts: 161
Join date: 2012-02-23
Age: 50
Location: surface omnidim gridpoint

• Post n°160

Babyloon imploded in Oxys heartsink

Eartheart Today at 2:48 am

Voila, wild defender, i took the newly pressed Oxy tabs, actually two of them
without a drink, and now i know what his Jesus is driving:

He's driving out really freaky spirits from the temple

So who wrote the old books, 300years after Babyloon, no hebrew lingua yet,
some old exagerated fabels to hold identety to and lots of translation error
to begin with (check the alexandria lib in those vatican faults!)
To the slaves, the "Old Testament" was intended to mean the Torah (actually the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Torah). To the royals, the Old Testament was intended to mean the "last will and testament of Julius Caesar." You can see here a perfect example of a dual meaning - one for the slaves and one for the royals. The Septuagint, by the way, was written by seventy Rabbis at the library at Alexandria in Egypt. Because the Ptolemy pharaohs were ancestors of the Piso/Flavians the Septuagint was actually paid for by them. Because they owned it, they decided to include it in their new version of the Bible. It is also interesting that there were 70 Rabbis involved in the writing, and the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE.

The NT as a provocative political PR-machine, denying the original holographic hierarchy of the cosmic tree in everyone:

THE NT BOOKS:

*

MARK:

The gospel of Mark was written in a prototype form before it was later crafted into the form that we are familiar with. The earlier version was called ‘Ur Marcus’ and is also known/called ‘Q’ (for ‘Quelle’, which is German for the ‘source’).


Our latest findings regarding the early version of Mark show that this was written at about the time of Claudius Caesar, by the grandfather of Arrius Piso. That version was apparently only a bare sketch and most likely did not give a name to the ‘messiah’. That appears to have been done later by the person who actually played ‘Jesus’ in the Gospels - Arrius Piso

The version that we are familiar with was written about the year 73 CE by Arrius Calpurnius Piso. Arrius Piso was a Roman on his father’s side, but a descendant of King Herod on his mother’s side and therefore he knew well about the Jewish religion. He was also a close relative to the Flavians and even though secretly he could inherit and use the Flavian name by his mother’s descent from them, he gave a story about receiving it from the emperor Vespasian (in his other identity as Flavius Josephus).

*

MATTHEW:

Matthew too, was authored by Arrius Calpurnius Piso. This was written about the year 75 CE.

*

LUKE:

Was written 85-90 CE by Arrius C. Piso and Pliny the Younger.

*

JOHN:

The 4th Gospel, or the Gospel of John was written by Justus Calpurnius Piso, a son of Arrius C. Piso. This son was very much like this father in his hatred towards humanity. This Gospel was written circa 105 CE.

*

ACTS:

The Acts of the Apostles was written by Arrius Piso and his son Justus, with some help from Pliny the Younger 96-100 CE. By the way, there is a portion of Acts that is missing from most English translations/interpretations. That is the 29th Chapter, which has 10 verses.

*

ROMANS:

The epistle to the Romans was written by another son of Arrius Piso (Proculus Piso) and Claudia Phoebe about the year 100. Claudia Phoebe is known in history as the wife of the emperor Trajan (as Pompeia Plotina). She wrote the last few verses of this epistle, which many copies of the NT in English leave out because that portion was written by a woman. This is obvious, and she even gives her name as ‘Phoebe’. You can tell where the previous male author leaves off and the female author begins because the male author “signs off” with ‘Amen’. She wrote the last verses (25-27) of Romans, Chapter 16.

*

1st CORINTHIANS, GALATIONS, and EPHESIANS:

were all written between 100-103 CE by Pliny the Younger.

*

2nd CORINTHIANS and PHILIPPIANS:

were written by Justus C. Piso between 103-105 CE.

*

COLOSSIANS:

was written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus (Julianus was the father of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, but this is seen in history only by his use of another name ‘Verus’).

*

1st TIMOTHY:

was written by Pliny the Younger circa 105 CE.

*

2nd TIMOTHY:

was written by Justus C. Piso (also known in history by other names), c. 107 CE.

*

1st and 2nd THESSALONIANS:

were written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus with some help from his nephew Silanus between the years 105-110 CE.

*

TITUS:

was written by Pliny the Younger circa 103-105 CE.

*

PHILEMON:

was written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus.

*

JAMES:

was written by Justus C. Piso around 110 CE.

*

1st and 2nd PETER:

were written by Proculus Piso between 110-115 CE.

*

1st, 2nd and 3rd JOHN:

were written by Julius Calpurnius Piso (who was still another son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso), between 110-115 CE.

*

JUDE:

was written by Julius C. Piso also, between the years 110-115 CE.

*

THE REVELATION OF JOHN THE DIVINE:

was written by Julius Calpurnius Piso, who may have been the son of the other Julius Calpurnius Piso (who had the same name), and this was written in or about the year 137 CE. It was not the book of the NT, just written as the end of the story.

*

HEBREWS:

This was written by a grandson of Arrius Piso named Flavius Arrianus circa 140 CE. Flavius Arrianus was the real name of the historian who wrote as ‘Appian’. This person was the half-brother of the emperor Antoninus Pius. Antoninus Pius, by the way, also wrote history under the name of Suetonius. Flavius Arrianus also wrote other works, most notably, he wrote under the name of ‘Ptolemy’.



FROM CHAPTER 1 of The True Authorship of the New Testament

by Abelard Reuchlin

from TheRomanPisoForum Website

“The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso
(pronounced Peso w/ long “E”) family (a), who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and
all the characters in it—Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and
John the Baptist—are all fictional.”


“The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in
history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the
Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!)
characters.”


“In the middle of the first century of our present era, Rome’s aristocracy felt itself confronted with a
growing problem. The Jewish religion was continuing to grow in numbers, adding ever more
proselytes. Jews numbered more than 8,000,000, and were 10% of the population of the empire
and 20% of that portion living east of Rome. (b) Approximately half or more of the Jews lived
outside Palestine, of which many were descended from proselytes, male and female.” (c)


“However, Judaism’s ethics and morality were incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution of
slavery on which the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism would become the
chief religion of the empire. The Roman author, Annaeus Seneca, tutor and confidant of Emperor
Nero, suggested in a letter to his friend Lucilius (a pseudonym of Lucius Piso) that lighting candles
on Sabbaths be prohibited. (d) Seneca is later quoted by St. Augustine in his City of God (e)
(although the quotation does not exist in Seneca’s extant writings) as charging that:

“the (Sabbath) customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conqueror.””

“The family headed by Seneca’s friend, Lucius Piso, was confronted with an allied problem more
personal to it. They were the Calpurnius Pisos, who were descended from statesmen and consuls,
and from great poets and historians as well. Gaius and Lucius Calpurnius Piso, leaders of the family,
had both married Arria the Younger (from her grandfather’s name, Aristobulus). This made Gaius
and Lucius Piso’s wife the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great.”


“Repeatedly, religious-minded Judaean zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers
of Judaea who were Piso’s wife’s relations. Piso wished to strengthen his wife’s family’s control of
the Judaeans. The Pisos searched for a solution to the two problems. They found it in the Jewish
holy books, which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion and for the zealot’s
refusal to be governed by Rome’s puppets. The Pisos mocked, but marveled at, the Jewish belief in
their holy books. Therefore, they felt a new “Jewish” book would be the ideal method to pacify the
Judaeans and strengthen their in-laws’ control of the country.”


“About the year, 60 A.D. (C.E.), Lucius Calpurnius Piso composed Ur Marcus, the first version of
the Gospel of Mark, which no longer exists. He was encouraged by his friend Seneca (f) and
assisted by his wife’s kinsman, young Persius the Poet. Nero’s mistress (later his wife) Poppea was
pro-Jewish, and Nero opposed the plan. The result was the Pisonian conspiracy to assassinate
Nero, detailed in the historian Tacitus. But this attempt failed when he aborted the plot. Instead,
Nero had Piso and Seneca and their fellow conspirators executed by forcing them to commit
suicide.”


“He exiled Piso’s young son Arrius (spelled “Arius” herein), who appears in Tacitus under several
names, including “Antonius Natalis.” (g) Nero sent young Piso to Syria as governor. That post also
gave him command of the legions controlling Judaea. His own “history” records his service in Judaea
in the year 65 under the name of Gessius Florus, and in 66 with the pseudonym Cestius Gallus.”


“This Arius Calpurnius Piso deliberately provoked the Jewish revolt in 66 so he could destroy the
Temple in Jerusalem (h)--for the Jews were unwilling to accept his father’s story and thereby
become pacified by it as it was intended. However, his 12th legion was caught by the zealots in the
Pass of Beth Horon and almost lost. Nero’s reaction was to exile him instead to Pannonia, to
command a legion there; and to send Licinius Mucianus to serve in Syria, and Vespasian to Judaea
to put down the Jewish revolt.”


“Then in 68 Nero was assassinated by his own slave Epaphroditus (i) --who unknown to his master
was young Piso’s lackey. Galba became emperor and named Piso’s cousin, Licinianus Piso, (j) as
his intended successor; but Galba in turn was soon overthrown by Otho. Otho was then overthrown
by Vitellius, at which point Piso and his friends began to flock together against the latter. The Pisos,
Mucianus, and Tiberius Alexander all joined ranks behind Vespasian to seek to overthrow Vitellius.
(k) The were joined by Frontinus and Agricola.”


“Arius Calpurnius Piso was still commanding the 7th legion in Pannonia (l) (Austria-Hungary), and
Vespasian sent him (m) (now appearing in Tacitus with the name Marcus Antonius Primus (n)) south
across the Alps to overthrow Vitellius. Meanwhile, the main body of Vespasian’s legions marched
overland under Mucianus from the east towards Rome. Piso succeeded in defeating Vitellius’ army
and secured Rome for Vespasian.(o) Mucianus arrived and promptly sent him to Judaea to help
Titus at the siege of Jerusalem. He did so, and in 70 they assaulted the city, then the Temple, burned
it, slaughtered many thousands, sent thousands more to slavery and gladiatorial combat and death.”


“Then, Arius Calpurnius Piso wrote, in sequence, the following:

*

Gospel of Matthew (70-75 C.E.)
*

Present Gospel of Mark (75-80 C.E.)
*

Gospel of Luke (85-90 C.E., with help of Pliny the Younger)

In the gospel story he inserted himself by playing the role of not only Jesus, but of all the
Josephs, as well. He particularly enjoyed assuming the identity of Joseph. Wishing to create a
Jewish hero, a savior, in fictional form, he (and his father before him), felt the identity of a second
Joseph secretly, but very aptly, fit them. For their name Piso had the same four letters, rearranged,
as the four Hebrew letters (Yud Vov Samech Fey) which in that language spelled the name Joseph.
Thus they saw themselves as the new Joseph. That is why so much of the story of Joseph in Egypt is
secretly redone and inserted into the gospel story of Jesus.”


http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/"
>TheRoman Piso Homepage

http://www.webspawner.com/users/flavianhypothesis/
">The Flavian Hypothesis

href="http://members.tripod.com/ReuchlinA/
">OtherPiso Sites

http://www.caesarsmessiah.com
">Caesar's Messiah

href="http://www.domainofman.com/
">Domain of Man

href="./Sfeder-RodephEmet277.mov
">Joseph Atwill in Person (movie)

href="http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso/
">Roman PisoForum

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/
">The PerseusProject

href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook09.html
">InternetAncient History Sourcebook

href="zela.gif">TheLocation of Zela
href="caesar.html">TheCareer of Julius Caesar
href="http://pace.cns.yorku.ca/York/york/showText?text=wars&version=whiston"
>Worksof Flavius Josephus

href="piercingeye.html"
>The Piercing Eye of TheRevelation



By this way Dr.Oxy wemeet again at the edge of this fractal

 

shiloh


shiloh

Posts: 832
Join date: 2011-03-16
Age: 57
Location: Akbar Ra

• Post n°164

Re: The United States of the Solar System: 2133 A.D. Book Two.

shiloh Today at 5:57 am
orthodoxymoron wrote:

Thank-you Eartheart. I read your post -- and it basically expanded upon information I was previously aware of -- but it still blew me away!! I'm trying to be as traditional-historical as possible -- with the full realization that a lot of things and individuals are going to come crashing-down in the info-war. I have been trying to build upon the following items (in part):

1. History.
2. Historical-Fiction.
3. Science.
4. Science-Fiction.
5. Ethics.
6. Law.
7. Law-Enforcement.
8. The Military.
9. Business and Finance.

This involves remaining as close as possible to Reformed Judeo-Christian Theology. The Piso's might've made-up a lot of stuff -- but what if they injected forbidden-knowledge into their historical-fiction?? I think the Bible should be carefully and prayerfully studied -- no matter what happens. BTW -- do you know who I might've been historically (especially regarding what you just posted)?? I just sort of play along with various illusions and delusions. It seems to yield unique insights into the unknown and the unknowable. Why do people think I'm a Nucking-Fut??!! Viewer-Discretion is Advised Regarding the Following Videos. This is NOT Fun-Stuff (to say the least). The Secret is to Keep-Researching When You "Lose" Your Faith!!

​

A tendency of Nabsers to be 'blown away' by Nabs and sensationalist propaganda agendas

Matthew 12:25-27 - King James Version (KJV)

25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

A 'Zeitgeist' of Carrier, Crossan, Hagin, Fitzgerald and Acharya S. and Co versus Atwill​

[12:30:56 PM-Saturday, May 23rd, 2015/+10UCT] Sirius 17: this is what i thought
[12:33:14 PM] Sirius 17: EH sure dug up a hell of a reference list for his load of crap; people will publish anything to make a buck and especially on hot topics such as Jesus
Revolting, they don't fuc11ing understand

[12:34:41 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/10/joseph-atwill-has-not-proven-that-jesus-was-made-up-by-the-romans/ ... Lol I am going to reply
[12:40:09 PM] Sirius 17: oh you should; i was thinking either you or i should. This article is a good find

​

Even logically, his analysis is flawed. If this tactic was used against the Jews, why didn’t the Romans use it against an even greater threat: the Gauls?! The Jewish people were never as serious a threat to the Empire as much as the Gauls were–who sacked Rome twice and destroyed Legions. Atwill never seems to consider how basically incompetent his thesis is in this regard. If the Romans had such success against the Jews using this “psychological warfare” (anachronism alert!! Danger! Danger!), why don’t we see this happening against all of their enemies? It is just so beyond absurd. It really is.

[12:48:35 PM] Sirius 17: Exactly
​

Here is the thing; it may be that Mr. Atwill is completely clueless about this. Maybe he isn’t just trying to scam everyone and sell a bunch of books to a group of gullible people. Maybe he legitimately hasn’t read anything relevant on this subject or any recent scholarship on it.

[12:49:24 PM] Sirius 17: he is trying to scam everyone, it sells books
​

“What? ‘The Romans Invented Jesus’? What a rip off!”

But that is troubling–would you want to read a science book written by a layperson who hasn’t read a single relevant scientific study? Would you pick up a book on engineering written by someone with a background in computer science, and trust that book enough to build a house based upon its designs? I hope not. I sincerely hope that no one would agree to trust either of these books.

[12:50:41 PM] Sirius 17: no only on the MOA forum would you consult a layperson or nabs artist extraordinaire; fuc11 science and anyone actually educated in Greek such as a scholar
[12:51:28 PM] Sirius 17: oh and physicists too, god forbid an actual expert weigh in on that forum
​

Mr. Atwill is just like all the other amateur-Scholar-wannabes who refuse to put in the time and effort to earn a degree in the field, who want to advance their pet theories to sell books and dupe you over. He relies on popular media and the ignorance of the layperson to score points rather than publishing in a credible academic journal or publishing academically. He knows he can’t do that, because he has no clue how academics work, how they think, or what they actually argue on the subject. He might as well claim that Jesus lived on Atlantis, which came from Mars. That theory is about as ridiculous as the notion that Rome invented Jesus.

[12:54:39 PM] Sirius 17: Mr. Atwill is just like the nabs community, but a bit smarter in that he uses peoples gullabilities and ignorance to sell his bs to them, sell being the keyword here
[1:06:16 PM] Sirius 17:





chris white did a video debunking this before, i seem to recall you posting this or something
[1:06:43 PM] Sirius 17: ironic the guys name is Joseph Atwill lol; ABBABAAB at their best in humorous synchronicity
[1:20:22 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah: I will use this
[1:22:42 PM] Sirius 17: http://caesarsmessiahdebunked.com/ here is his blog on it
[1:22:48 PM] Sirius 17: and included is the video
[1:24:52 PM] Sirius 17: http://caesarsmessiahdebunked.com/?page_id=12 here are some more debunking links provided by Chris
[1:27:02 PM] Sirius 17: https://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/no-joe-atwill-rome-did-not-invent-jesus/ this one seems good too
[1:27:53 PM] Sirius 17: he quotes Atwil then says this:


I mean this is just golden cow scat. Seriously. Why? Because that is what you’re watching.

Let’s start with the blurb itself. Just the little snippet above should put anyone off from even considering this hypothesis.
​

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not all written in the first century, but spread out over many. There are more than 200 years of texts here, from the terminus a quo of the earliest manuscript to the terminus ad quem of the latest (3rd Century CE – 1st Century CE). So no, Atwill, you’re not going to find a match to the Gospels because these were written after the Dead Sea Scrolls had been hidden away in the caves of Qumran. In fact the site was probably destroyed by Romans during the First Jewish War–prior to when it is generally believed Mark wrote the first Gospel around 70 CE.
The Gospels follow a pattern of what is called ‘Biblical Rewriting’ which was a common Jewish practice, just as ‘Homeric rewriting’ was common with Greek and Roman writers. So actually the Gospels fit quite well within the scribal framework of the Jewish community at the time.
Why would the Dead Sea Scrolls mention Jesus when the settlement where these scrolls were probably written is over 130km (80 miles) away from Galilee? That is the distance between New York City and Philadelphia. Additionally, the sect at Qumran seems to have kept to themselves, living strict pious lives of obedience to god and to their laws. I do not believe them to have been Essenes–though probably quite close to them.
Who else would have mentioned him? We have no contemporary attestation to anything from the 30’s CE from Galilee beyond archaeological finds (coins, epigraphical evidence, etc…). But that does not mean to suggest none existed from the region. Between the Jewish wars, the passing of time, we’re lucky we have anything from the region. This is a weak argument from silence.
If you’re coming ‘into Christian scholarship’ from this position, you’...

[1:42:10 PM] Sirius 17: it looks like the first link you provided by this JT guy is taken from the above link, this Tom Verenna
[1:42:31 PM] Sirius 17: noticing similarities, Tom has an update too


UPDATE 10-9-13

Since this “documentary” first appeared, it seems that Mr. Atwill is again trying to profit off the ignorance of others. Now, self-styled as an ‘American Biblical scholar”, Mr. Atwill is peddling his book of lies and misleading theories to those in the UK. This nonsense does not deserve another post; but I will update this one because it can’t go along unopposed.............​

Joseph Atwill has not proven that Jesus was made up by the Romans.

October 10, 2013 by JT Eberhard 280 Comments

A lot of people are sending me this article talking about Joseph Atwill’s upcoming presentation of his claim that Rome invented Jesus:


American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. His presentation will be part of a one-day symposium entitled “Covert Messiah” at Conway Hall in Holborn.


This sounds groundbreaking, so I double checked it with some historians I know. The first to get back to me was David Fitzgerald who lamented that work like Atwill’s makes his job so much harder. To quote Fitzgerald, Atwill gets the right conclusion (Jesus was never a real person), but for all the wrong reasons. He linked me to http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/update-10313-no-joe-atwill-rome-did-not-invent-jesus/ a piece by historian Thomas Verenna who breaks down why Atwill is pretty much the historical equivalent of VenomFangX:


This is a serious flaw in Atwill’s work. He makes claims but doesn’t seem to realize how ridiculous they actually are; it is that scholars find his work “outlandish”. It is just plain wrong. I mean it is still crazy talk, but it is more that his whole premise is wrong.
For example, like all sensationalist crap-dealers, Mr, Atwill claims to have discovered the secret, super-dooper, hidden code in the text. Amazing! I self-proclaimed “Biblical scholar”, with no formal training in the material, has used his magic decoder ring and stumbled upon a code! How clever of him. He states:


Atwill’s most intriguing discovery came to him while he was studying “Wars of the Jews” by Josephus [the only surviving first-person historical account of first-century Judea] alongside the New Testament. “I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts,” he recounts. “Although it’s been recognised by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more. What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar.”

First, and let me be clear, are there striking similarities between Josephus and the Gospel of Luke? Yes, there are. Steven Mason, a real scholar, has published an entire volume on the subject called
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_20?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=josephus and the new]Josephus and the New Testament[/i]. [/quote]

Richard Carrier has also written on the subject of the parallels between Josephus and Luke-Acts. Joel Watts, an actual student of Biblical Studies who has done graduate work in the field (unlike Mr. Atwill), has written an academically-published book on some http://unsettledchristianity.com/2013/10/joe-atwill-bill-oreilly-and-josephus-sitting-in-a-tree/ interesting mimetic elements between Mark and Josephus.

The difference between what these scholars have written and what Mr. Atwill have written is threefold: (a) all of them have academic training in Greek, (b) all of them published through an academic press (Carrier is the exception, but he has published academically and is qualified on the subject), (c) None of them make the illogical leap that similarities between Josephus (a Jew) and the Gospels (written by Jewish authors) mean that the Romans did it. In fact it is the same misguided leap that some evangelicals make about God. “We don’t know, ergo ‘God did it’.” Instead, all of these scholars agree that the most rational reason for these similarities is that the Gospel authors had copies of Josephus, or Josephus had copies of the Gospels. This sort of interplay of texts is not new in the ancient world.
Second, what is utterly absurd is the notion that the Jews were ‘a constant source of violent insurrection.” No, they weren’t. In fact, with the exception of two wars–one that started in 69 and ended in 73 and another that started in 132 and ended in 136–there were barely any disruptions in Judaea. In fact, the Romans and the Jews got along fine for over 100 years prior to the first revolt and again for almost another 60 years following the destruction of the Temple and the end of the first revolt.
Notwithstanding this damning evidence against him, Atwill’s premise is quite narrowed and simplistic, demonstrating a critical lack of understanding of the cultural dynamics of Judea in the first century.


“Crap…why didn’t we just use psychological warfare against these guys?”

There exist over 30 Jewish sects that we know of from the first century, and have some basic understanding of their belief structures. There are some dozens more we just know by name. On top of that, we have to conclude there are perhaps dozens, if not hundreds, more Jewish sects of which we simply have no record. What is so interesting is how incredibly different each sect is from each other.
Despite Atwill’s unlearned claim that the Jewish people were expecting a ‘Warrior messiah’, in truth there is no universal version of a messiah. Even among the same sect, over time, the concept of their messiah would change. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, which Mr. Atwill seems to think he knows so well, the language of the messiah and his purpose changes (in fact at one point, we see two distinct messiahs at once–one a priestly messiah and another a kingly messiah). Some sects did not even expect a messiah at all. Any of the numerous works on messianic expectations published in the last two decades utterly annihilates any claim that Atwill is making about some uniformity in Jewish thought and ritual.
Even logically, his analysis is flawed. If this tactic was used against the Jews, why didn’t the Romans use it against an even greater threat: the Gauls?! The Jewish people were never as serious a threat to the Empire as much as the Gauls were–who sacked Rome twice and destroyed Legions. Atwill never seems to consider how basically incompetent his thesis is in this regard. If the Romans had such success against the Jews using this “psychological warfare” (anachronism alert!! Danger! Danger!), why don’t we see this happening against all of their enemies? It is just so beyond absurd. It really is.

Here is the thing; it may be that Mr. Atwill is completely clueless about this. Maybe he isn’t just trying to scam everyone and sell a bunch of books to a group of gullible people. Maybe he legitimately hasn’t read anything relevant on this subject or any recent scholarship on it.

“What? ‘The Romans Invented Jesus’? What a rip off!”

But that is troubling–would you want to read a science book written by a layperson who hasn’t read a single relevant scientific study? Would you pick up a book on engineering written by someone with a background in computer science, and trust that book enough to build a house based upon its designs? I hope not. I sincerely hope that no one would agree to trust either of these books.
This is the issue with Mr. Atwill. He may sincerely believe he has discovered the secret code off a cereal box with his 3-D glasses he found inside; that doesn’t make him an expert in the subject, it doesn’t make him knowledgeable enough to give lectures on it. It certainly does not make him credible.

Mr. Atwill is just like all the other amateur-Scholar-wannabes who refuse to put in the time and effort to earn a degree in the field, who want to advance their pet theories to sell books and dupe you over. He relies on popular media and the ignorance of the layperson to score points rather than publishing in a credible academic journal or publishing academically. He knows he can’t do that, because he has no clue how academics work, how they think, or what they actually argue on the subject. He might as well claim that Jesus lived on Atlantis, which came from Mars. That theory is about as ridiculous as the notion that Rome invented Jesus.[/quote]


Richard Carrier has also gone to town on Atwill:



There are at least eight general problems with his thesis, which do not refute it but establish that it has a very low prior probability, and therefore requires exceptionally good evidence to be at all credible:
{1} The Roman aristocracy was nowhere near as clever as Atwill’s theory requires. They certainly were not so masterfully educated in the Jewish scriptures and theology that they could compose hundreds of pages of elegant passages based on it. And it is very unlikely they would ever conceive of a scheme like this, much less think they could succeed at it (even less, actually do so).
{2} We know there were over forty Gospels, yet the four chosen for the canon were not selected until well into the 2nd century, and not by anyone in the Roman aristocracy. Likewise which Epistles were selected.
{3} The Gospels and the Epistles all contradict each other far too much to have been composed with a systematic aim in mind. Indeed, they contradict each other in ways that often demonstrate they are deliberately arguing with each other. From the ways Matthew changes Mark; to the way the forged 2 Thessalonians actually tries to argue 1 Thessalonians is the forgery; to how the resurrections depicted in Luke and John are deliberate attempts to refute the doctrine of resurrection defended originally by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5; to how some Epistles insist on Torah observance while others insist it can be discarded; to how Luke’s nativity contradicts Matthew’s on almost every single particular (and not just in placing the event in completely different periods ten years apart); to how Acts blatantly contradicts Paul’s own account of his conversion and travels; to how John invents a real Lazarus to refute a point Luke tried to make with a fictional Lazarus; and so on. (I discuss some of these, and more, in my forthcoming book On the Historicity of Jesus.)
{4} The Gospels and the Epistles differ far too much in style to have come from the same hand, and many show signs of later doctoring that would problematize attempts to confirm any theory like Atwill’s. For example, Mark 16:9-20, John 20 vs. 21, the hash job made of the epistle to the Romans, etc. Even the fact of how the canon was selected creates a problem for Atwill’s research requirements–for instance, the actual first letter to the Corinthians is completely missing, yet Paul refers to its existence in “our” 1 Corinthians.
{5} Christianity was probably constructed to “divert Jewish hostility and aggressiveness into a pacifist religion, supportive of–and subservient to–Roman rule,” but not by Romans, but exasperated Jews like Paul, who saw Jewish militarism as unacceptably disastrous in contrast with the obvious advantages of retooling their messianic expectations to produce the peaceful moral reform of society. The precedents were all there already in pre-Christian Jewish ideology and society (in Philo’s philosophy, in Essene and Qumranic efforts to solve the same problems, and so on) so we don’t have to posit super-genius Aryans helping the poor little angry Jews to calm down.
{6} Pacifying Jews would not have been possible with a cult that eliminated Jewish law and accepted Gentiles as equals, and in actual fact Christianity was pretty much a failure in Palestine. Its success was achieved mainly in the Diaspora, where the Romans rarely had any major problems with the Jews. The Jewish War was only fought in Palestine, and not even against all the Jews there (many sided with Rome). How would inventing a religion that would have no chance of succeeding in the heart of Palestine but instead was tailor made to succeed outside Palestine, ever help the Romans with anything they considered important?
{7} If the Roman elite’s aim was to “pacify” Palestinian Jews by inventing new scriptures, they were certainly smart and informed enough to know that that wouldn’t succeed by using the language the Judean elite despised as foreign (Greek).
{8} The Romans knew one thing well: War. Social ideology they were never very good at. That’s why Rome always had such problems keeping its empire together, and why social discontent and other malfunctions continued to escalate until the empire started dissolving. Rome expected to solve every problem militarily instead–and up until the 3rd century Rome did so quite well. The Jewish War was effectively over in just four years (any siege war was expected to take at least three, and Vespasian was actually busy conquering Rome in the fourth year of that War). So why would they think they needed any other solution?
With all that counting against Atwill, he has a very high burden to meet. And he just doesn’t. He actually has no evidence at all for his thesis, except “Bible Code”-style readings of coincidences among texts, which he seems only to read in English and not the original Greek, all the while relying on egregious fallacies in probabilistic reasoning.




So thanks for the article, but for the time being all the experts seem to think it’s bullshit to the power of bullshit.
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/10/joseph-atwill-has-not-proven-that-jesus-was-made-up-by-the-romans/#sthash.LGZztyga.dpuf

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/10/joseph-atwill-has-not-proven-that-jesus-was-made-up-by-the-romans/

 

shiloh


shiloh

Posts: 837
Join date: 2011-03-16
Age: 57
Location: Akbar Ra

• Post n°174

Re: The Factuals versus the Nabs

shiloh Today at 8:39 am

shenandoah - posted January 19th, 2014 on Thuban


http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/the-minimal-facts-of-the-resurrection/

The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection


written by Aaron Brake

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
—Antony Flew—​

INTRODUCTION
The truth of Christianity stands or falls on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Paul himself said, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” Here the Apostle provides an objective criterion by which to judge the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. Show that Christ has not been raised from the dead and you will have successfully proven Christianity false. Conversely, if Jesus did rise from the dead then His life and teachings are vindicated.

The Christian faith, as it turns out, is falsifiable. It is the only religion which bases its faith on an empirically verifiable event.

Christ Himself testified that His resurrection is the sign given to the world as evidence for His extraordinary claims: “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Furthermore, the resurrection was the central message proclaimed by the early church as most clearly demonstrated in the book of Acts.
Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that an objective examination of Christianity focus on the most pivotal historical event of the faith: the Resurrection.
.............

Objection #4: Christianity Borrowed From Pagan Religions (The Copycat Theory)

Perhaps then Christianity finds its origin in paganism. Popular internet movies such as Zeitgeist have made ubiquitous the belief that there really is nothing unique about the Christian Savior. Jesus is simply a conglomeration of past dying and rising “messiahs” repackaged for a first-century audience whose zealousness eventually grew into the Christian religion we know today. Despite the pervasiveness of this belief it suffers from numerous problems.

First, pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive context considering that “Jesus and his disciples were first-century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.”
Second, the Jews were familiar with seasonal deities (Ezek. 37:1-14) and found them detestable, making it extremely improbable that they would borrow mythology from them. This is why no trace of pagan cults celebrating dying and rising gods can be found in first-century Palestine.
Third, the earliest account of a dying and rising god that somewhat parallels Jesus’ resurrection appears at least 100 years later. The historical evidence for these myths is non-existent and the accounts are easily explained by naturalistic theories.
Fourth, the Copycat Theory begs the question. It assumes the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are false (the very thing it is intending to prove) and then attempts to explain how these accounts originated by appealing to supposed parallels within pagan mythology. But first it must be shown that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are false! In other words, even if it could be shown that parallels exist, it does not follow that the resurrection of Jesus is not a historical event. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection must be judged on its own merit because “the claims of resurrections in other religions do not explain the evidence that exists for Jesus’ resurrection.”

Finally, to put to rest this outdated and unsubstantiated theory, the late Dr. Ronald Nash summarizes seven important points that completely undermine the idea that Christianity derived its doctrine from the pagan mystery religions:

1. Arguments offered to “prove” a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause… Coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.
2. Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity…
3. The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.
4. Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions…
5. Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith…
6. Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history…
7. What few parallels may still remain reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems…

Nash offers this final word regarding the copycat theory: “Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous.” Therefore, it is safe to conclude that “the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church…remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.”





INTRODUCTION

The truth of Christianity stands or falls on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Paul himself said, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”[1] Here the Apostle provides an objective criterion by which to judge the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. Show that Christ has not been raised from the dead and you will have successfully proven Christianity false. Conversely, if Jesus did rise from the dead then His life and teachings are vindicated. The Christian faith, as it turns out, is falsifiable. It is the only religion which bases its faith on an empirically verifiable event.[2]
Christ Himself testified that His resurrection is the sign given to the world as evidence for His extraordinary claims: “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”[3] Furthermore, the resurrection was the central message proclaimed by the early church as most clearly demonstrated in the book of Acts.[4] Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that an objective examination of Christianity focus on the most pivotal historical event of the faith: the Resurrection.


THE MINIMAL FACTS APPROACH

The approach I will take in this paper is commonly referred to as the “minimal facts approach.” This method “considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.”[5] It should be noted this approach does not assume the inerrancy or divine inspiration of any New Testament document. Rather it merely holds these writings to be historical documents penned during the first century AD.[6]
Though as many as 12 minimal facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ may be examined,[7] the brevity of this paper limits our examination to four: the death of Jesus by crucifixion, the empty tomb,[8] the post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. I contend that the best explanation for these minimal facts is that Jesus was raised bodily from the grave.
Finally, if these facts “can be established and no plausible natural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, then one is justified in inferring Jesus’ resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data.”[9]


A MATTER OF HISTORY

Before looking at the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ it is important to identify a set of objective criteria by which the validity of historical events may be judged. In other words, what criteria may be used to establish the occurrence of an event with reasonable historical certainty? New Testament scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona list the following five criteria noting that “a historian who is able to apply one or more of the following principles to a text can conclude with much greater confidence whether a certain event occurred.”[10]

1. Historical claims are strong when supported by multiple, independent sources.
2. Historical claims which are also attested to by enemies are more likely to be authentic since enemies are unsympathetic, and often hostile, witnesses.
3. Historical claims which include embarrassing admissions reflect honest reporting rather than creative storytelling.
4. Historical claims are strong when supported by eyewitness testimony.
5. Historical claims which are supported by early testimony are more reliable and less likely to be the result of legendary development.[11]

Therefore, when inquiring into a historical event “the historian combs through the data, considers all the possibilities, and seeks to determine which scenario best explains the data.”[12]
Some skeptics argue that the resurrection of Jesus cannot be investigated historically. But this is mistaken. The facts surrounding the resurrection are of a historical nature and available for anyone to examine. Consequently, “the meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter.”[13] Thus either the bodily resurrection of Jesus actually occurred in history or it did not. Either the resurrection is the best explanation for the known historical data or it is not. Regardless, what we cannot do is simply dismiss it as “supernatural” or “miraculous” in an attempt to remove it from the pool of live options a priori. Moreover, we need to be careful not to confuse “the evidence for the resurrection with the best explanation of the evidence. The resurrection of Jesus is a miraculous explanation of the evidence. But the evidence itself is not miraculous. None of these four facts is any way supernatural or inaccessible to the historian.”[14] So although the resurrection may be classified as a “miraculous event,” it is a historical event nonetheless and should be investigated as such. John Warwick Montgomery provides helpful insight:

The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in fact it has occurred. The problem of “miracles,” then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation. And note that a historian, in facing an alleged “miracle,” is really facing nothing new. All historical events are unique, and the test of their factual character can be only the accepted documentary approach that we have followed here. No historian has the right to a closed system of natural causation….”[15]
Therefore, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is really quite straightforward: “If Jesus was dead at point A, and alive again at point B, then resurrection has occurred: res ipsa loquitur.”[16]


FACT #1—THE DEATH OF JESUS BY CRUCIFIXION

Perhaps no other fact surrounding the life of the historical Jesus is better attested to than His death by crucifixion. Not only is the crucifixion account included in every gospel narrative[17] but it is also confirmed by several non-Christian sources. These include the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata, as well as the Jewish Talmud.[18] Josephus tells us that “Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us…condemned him to the cross…”[19] From a perspective of historiography, Jesus’ crucifixion meets the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources including enemy attestation. John Dominic Crossan, non-Christian critical scholar and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[20]


Objection #1: Jesus Didn’t Really Die (The Swoon Theory)

Some skeptics argue that Jesus may have been crucified but He did not actually die. Instead, He lost consciousness (swooned) and merely appeared to be dead only to later be revived in the cool, damp tomb in which He was laid. After reviving He made His way out of the tomb and presented Himself to His disciples as the “resurrected” Messiah. Thus the Christian religion begins. This theory is problematic for several reasons.
First, the Swoon Theory does not take seriously what we know about the horrendous scourging and torture associated with crucifixion. As an expert team from the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes, “Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[21]
Second, Jesus faking His own resurrection goes against everything we know about His ethical ministry.
Third, a half-dead, half-resurrected “messiah” could hardly serve as the foundation for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection. German theologian David Friederick Strauss explains:

It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror of death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.[22]
Fourth, this theory is anachronistic in postulating that the disciples, upon seeing Jesus in his half-comatose state, would be led to conclude that He had been raised from the dead within history, in opposition to the Jewish belief in one final resurrection at the end of time. On the contrary, seeing Him again would lead them to conclude He didn’t die![23]
Fifth, Roman soldiers were professional executioners and everything we know about the torture and crucifixion of Jesus confirms His death, making this theory physically impossible.
Sixth, no early evidence or testimony exists claiming Jesus was merely wounded.
Finally, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.


FACT #2—THE EMPTY TOMB

Something happened to the body of Jesus. Of this we can be sure. Not only was Jesus publicly executed in Jerusalem but “His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first publicly proclaimed there.”[24] This would have been impossible with a decaying corpse still in the tomb. “It would have been wholly un-Jewish,” notes William Lane Craig, “not to say foolish, to believe that a man was raised from the dead when his body was still in the grave.”[25] The Jewish authorities had plenty of motivation to produce a body and silence these men who “turned the world upside down,”[26] effectively ending the Christian religion for good. But no one could. The only early opposing theory recorded by the enemies of Christianity is that the disciples stole the body.[27] Ironically, this presupposes the empty tomb.
In addition, all four gospel narratives attest to the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea and place women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb.[28] Both of these are highly unlikely to be Christian inventions.
First, with regard to Joseph of Arimathea, Biblical scholar James G. D. Dunn explains that he

is a very plausible historical character: he is attested in all four Gospels… and in the Gospel of Peter…; when the tendency of the tradition was to shift blame to the Jewish council, the creation ex nihilo of a sympathizer from among their number would be surprising; and ‘Arimathea, ‘a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausible.’[29]
Atheist Jeffery Lowder agrees that “the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability.”[30]
Second, just as unlikely to be invented is the report of women followers discovering the empty tomb, especially when considering the low social status of women in both Jewish and Roman cultures and their inability to testify as legal witnesses.[31] If the empty tomb account were a fabricated story intended to persuade skeptics it would have been better served by including male disciples as the primary witnesses. In other words, both the burial and empty tomb accounts demonstrate a ring of authenticity which lends credibility to the gospel narratives.
As with the crucifixion, the account of the empty tomb meets the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources,[32] including implicit enemy attestation as well as the principle of embarrassment. In addition, the reports of the burial and empty tomb are simple and lack theological or legendary development.
Finally, there is no competing burial story in existence. Historian and skeptic Michael Grant concedes that “the historian… cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb” since applied historical criteria shows “the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.”[33]


Objection #2: The Disciples Stole the Body (The Fraud or Conspiracy Theory)

As mentioned above, the earliest recorded polemic against the empty tomb is the charge by Jewish authorities that the disciples stole the body. This is commonly referred to as the Fraud or Conspiracy Theory. This scenario posits that Jesus’ followers stole the body away unbeknownst to anyone and lied about the resurrection appearances, pulling off what has thus far been the greatest hoax in human history. There are several problems with this view.
First, this theory does not explain well the simplicity of the resurrection narratives nor why the disciples would invent women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb.[34] This is hardly the way one gets a conspiracy theory off the ground.
Second, this also doesn’t explain why the disciples would perpetuate a story that they stole they body (Matt. 28:11-15) if in fact they stole the body! Propagating an explanation which incriminates oneself is again at odds with a conspiracy theory.
Third, as will be discussed below, this theory does not account for the fact that the disciples of Jesus had genuine experiences in which they believed they saw the risen Christ. So convinced were these men that their lives were transformed into committed followers willing to suffer and die for their belief. Liars make poor martyrs.
Fourth, this theory runs opposite to everything we know about the disciples. As J. N. D. Anderson states, “This would run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality of their lives, their steadfastness in suffering and persecution. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle.”[35]
Fifth, this theory is completely anachronistic. There was no expectation by first century Jews of a suffering-servant Messiah who would be shamefully executed by Gentiles as a criminal only to rise again bodily before the final resurrection at the end of time: “As Wright nicely puts it, if your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you either went home or else you got yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples.”[36]
Finally, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.


FACT #3—THE POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul recounts what biblical scholars recognize as an early Christian creed dating to within a few years of the crucifixion. Notice the creedal nature and repetitive structure of this passage when broken down in the following form:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, in which also you stand,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.[37]
Included in this creed are three of our minimal facts: the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, and the post-resurrection appearances. Furthermore, our fourth minimal fact (the origin of Christianity) is easily explained given the first thee facts. Paul not only mentions the multiple post-resurrection appearances but includes himself as having seen the risen Lord. Several indicators in the text confirm this to be an early Christian creed.
First, as shown above, the passage uses stylized wording and parallel structure common to creedal formulas.
Second, the words “delivered” and “received” are technical terms indicating a rabbinic heritage is in view.
Third, the phrases “He was raised,” “third day,” and “the twelve” are unusual Pauline terms making this unlikely to have originated with Paul himself.
Fourth, the Aramaic term “Cephas” is used for Peter indicating an extremely early origin.[38] New Testament scholar and skeptic Gerd Lüdemann assigns this passage a very early date stating, “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years…the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 C.E.”[39]
The early date of this creed rules out the possibility of myth or legendary development as a plausible explanation and demonstrates that the disciples began proclaiming Jesus’ death, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances very early. Christian philosopher and theologian J. P. Moreland elaborates:

There was simply not enough time for a great deal of myth and legend to accrue and distort the historical facts in any significant way. In this regard, A. N. Sherwin-White, a scholar of ancient Roman and Greek history at Oxford, has studied the rate at which legend accumulated in the ancient world, using the writings of Herodotus as a test case. He argues that even a span of two generations is not sufficient for legend to wipe out a solid core of historical facts. The picture of Jesus in the New Testament was established well within that length of time.[40]
Again Lüdemann acknowledges, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”[41] There is no dispute among scholars that the disciples experienced something.
But there’s more. The disciples not only proclaimed that Jesus was raised but they sincerely believed the resurrection occurred as demonstrated by their transformed lives. Eleven early sources testify to the willingness of the apostles to suffer and die for their belief in the resurrection.[42] For example, we know extra-Biblically that Jesus’ brother James was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin and that the apostle Paul was beheaded in Rome under Nero.[43] Many people will die for what they believe to be true but no one willingly suffers and dies for what they know to be false. Again, liars make poor martyrs. This important point should not be confused by an appeal to modern-day martyrs who willingly die for their religious beliefs. Making this comparison is a false analogy: “Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The disciples of Jesus died for what they knew to be either true or false.”[44]
As with the crucifixion and empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances meet the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources, as well as the testimony of a former enemy of Christianity: Saul of Tarsus. Nine early and independent sources testify to the disciples’ proclamation that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.[45] To list just one example of this, the appearance “to the twelve” mentioned by Paul above is also attested to in Luke 24:36-42 and John 20:19-20. “The evidence,” says William Lane Craig, “makes it certain that on separate occasions different individuals and groups had experiences of seeing Jesus alive from the dead. This conclusion is virtually indisputable—and therefore undisputed.”[46]


Objection #3: The Disciples Experienced Hallucinations (The Hallucination Theory)

The most popular theory offered by skeptics to explain away the post-resurrection appearances is that the disciples experienced hallucinations. This is the position taken by Gerd Lüdemann (quoted above) among others. However, appealing to hallucinations as an explanation simply won’t work for the following reasons.
First, the testimony of Paul along with the Gospel writers is that the appearances of Jesus were physical, bodily appearances.[47] In fact, this is the unanimous consent of the Gospel narratives. This is an important point because if “none of the appearances was originally a physical, bodily appearance, then it is very strange that we have a completely unanimous testimony in the Gospels that all of them were physical, with no trace of the supposed original, non-physical appearances.”[48]
Second, hallucinations are private experiences (as opposed to group experiences). A group of people “may be in the frame of mind to hallucinate, but each experiences hallucinations on an individual basis. Nor will they experience the same hallucination. Hallucinations are like dreams in this way.”[49] Therefore, hallucinations cannot explain the group appearances attested to in 1 Cor. 15, the Gospel narratives, and the book of Acts.[50]
Third, ironically, the Hallucination Theory cannot explain the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection! Just like in today’s modern world, “for someone in the ancient world, visions of the deceased are not evidence that the person is alive, but evidence that he is dead!”[51] This is a crucial argument to grasp:

Hallucinations, as projections of the mind, can contain nothing new. Therefore, given the current Jewish beliefs about life after death, the disciples, were they to project hallucinations of Jesus, would have seen Jesus in heaven or in Abraham’s bosom, where the souls of the righteous dead were believed to abide until the resurrection. And such visions would not have caused belief in Jesus’ resurrection.[52]
In other words, a hallucination of the resurrected Jesus presupposes the proper frame of mind which the disciples simply did not possess.
Finally, hallucinations cannot explain such facts as the empty tomb, the conversions of skeptics like Paul, nor the multiple and varied resurrection appearances which defy a purely psychological, naturalistic explanation.[53] “To be perfectly candid,” concludes Craig, “the only grounds for denying the physical, corporeal nature of the postmortem appearances of Jesus is philosophical, not historical.”[54]


FACT #4—THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

No scholar denies the fact that the Christian religion exploded out of first century Israel. Within one generation of the death of Christ this movement known as “the Way” had spread to Europe, Africa, and Asia. Christianity is an effect that needs an adequate cause and explanation. Where exactly did the Christian faith come from and what best explains its origin?
The most obvious answer to this question is that the disciples truly saw the resurrected Christ. Only an event of this magnitude could turn scared, scattered, and skeptical disciples, with no prior concept and expectation of a crucified and risen Messiah, into courageous proclaimers of the gospel willing to suffer and die for their belief that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. This is what Peter boldly declared: “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses… Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”[55] The origin of the Christian faith is best explained by the disciples’ sincere belief that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Anyone who denies the resurrection itself as the explanation for the origin of Christianity must posit some other explanation. Only three possibilities seem to exist. If the resurrection did not occur, then Christianity was either the result of Christian, Jewish, or pagan influences.[56] Obviously the disciples could not succumb to Christian influences since Christianity was not yet in existence. But just as unlikely is the idea that the disciples’ belief in the resurrection originated from Jewish influences. The Jewish conception of the resurrection was one final, general resurrection of all mankind (or all the righteous) occurring after the end of the world. Nowhere in Jewish thought do we find the idea of a single individual resurrecting within history never to die again.[57]


Objection #4: Christianity Borrowed From Pagan Religions (The Copycat Theory)

Perhaps then Christianity finds its origin in paganism. Popular internet movies such as Zeitgeist have made ubiquitous the belief that there really is nothing unique about the Christian Savior. Jesus is simply a conglomeration of past dying and rising “messiahs” repackaged for a first-century audience whose zealousness eventually grew into the Christian religion we know today. Despite the pervasiveness of this belief it suffers from numerous problems.
First, pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive context considering that “Jesus and his disciples were first-century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.”[58]
Second, the Jews were familiar with seasonal deities (Ezek. 37:1-14) and found them detestable, making it extremely improbable that they would borrow mythology from them. This is why no trace of pagan cults celebrating dying and rising gods can be found in first-century Palestine.[59]
Third, the earliest account of a dying and rising god that somewhat parallels Jesus’ resurrection appears at least 100 years later. The historical evidence for these myths is non-existent and the accounts are easily explained by naturalistic theories.[60]
Fourth, the Copycat Theory begs the question. It assumes the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are false (the very thing it is intending to prove) and then attempts to explain how these accounts originated by appealing to supposed parallels within pagan mythology. But first it must be shown that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are false! In other words, even if it could be shown that parallels exist, it does not follow that the resurrection of Jesus is not a historical event. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection must be judged on its own merit because “the claims of resurrections in other religions do not explain the evidence that exists for Jesus’ resurrection.”[61]
Finally, to put to rest this outdated and unsubstantiated theory, the late Dr. Ronald Nash summarizes seven important points that completely undermine the idea that Christianity derived its doctrine from the pagan mystery religions:

1. Arguments offered to “prove” a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause… Coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.
2. Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity…
3. The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.
4. Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions…
5. Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith…
6. Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history…
7. What few parallels may still remain reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems…[62]

Nash offers this final word regarding the copycat theory: “Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous.”[63] Therefore, it is safe to conclude that “the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church…remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.”[64]


CONCLUSION

If Jesus was dead at point A, and alive at point B, we have a resurrection. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the best explanation for the known historical data: His death by crucifixion, the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. Furthermore, Jesus’ resurrection fits the context of his life, vindicating His teachings and radical claim to be the unique, divine Son of God. Paul says that Christ “was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.”[65] Naturalistic explanations (swoon theory, legendary development, fraud, hallucinations) fail to account for all the relevant data and in some cases (copycat theories) are outright false and ahistorical. Conversely, the Resurrection Hypothesis accounts for all of the known facts, has greater explanatory scope and power, is more plausible, and less ad hoc.[66] Only if one is guided by a prior commitment to philosophical naturalism will the conclusion “God raised Jesus from the dead” seem unjustified.


[1] 1 Cor. 15:14, NIV.
[2] Clay Jones, Lecture Notes: In Defense of the Resurrection (Biola University: School of Professional Studies), Spring 2010).
[3] Matt. 12:39-40.
[4] Acts 1:21-22; 2:22, 24, 32; 10:39-41, 43a; 13:30-31, 34a, 37; 17:2-3, 30-31; 24:21; 26:22-23.
[5] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 44.
[6] For more information on the historical reliability of the New Testament see Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2^nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), and F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6^th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).
[7] See Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Rev. ed. (Joplin: College Press, 1996), 158-167.
[8] Habermas and Licona note that “roughly 75 percent of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a historical fact” (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 70).
[9] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3^rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 361.
[10] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 36.
[11] Ibid., 36-40.
[12] Ibid., 32.
[13] Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1945), 386, as quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 211.
[14] William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman, Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman (Worcester: College of the Holy Cross, March 28, 2006), http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/DocServer/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf?docID=621 (accessed May 2, 2010).
[15] John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law and Christianity (Edmonton: Canadian Institute for Law, Theology, and Public Policy Inc., 2002), 61.
[16] John Warwick Montgomery, “The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity,” in Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Probe Books, 1991), http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm (accessed May 1, 2010).
[17] See Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:33, and John 19:18.
[18] Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3; Tacitus Annals 15:44; Lucian of Samosata The Death of Peregrine 11-13; Talmud Sanhedrin 43a.
[19] Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, Rev. ed., trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 590.
[20] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009), 163.
[21] William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255, no. 11 (March 21, 1986): 1463.

[22] David Friederick Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 1:412, as quoted in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1977), 91.
[23] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 373.
[24] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 70. See also Acts 2 and Tacitus Annals 15:44.
[25] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 361.
[26] Acts 17:6, NKJV.
[27] See Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr Trypho 108; Tertullian De Spectaculis 30.
[28] See Matt. 27:57-61, 28:1-8; Mark 15:43-16:7; Luke 23:50-24:12; John 19:38- 20:18.
[29] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 782.
[30] Jeffrey Jay Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst: Prometheus, 2005), 266.
[31] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 367.
[32] For example, 1 Cor. 15:3-5, Acts 13:28-31, and Mark 15:37-16:7
[33] Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribners, 1976), 176.
[34] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 371.
[35] J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale Press, 1969), 92, as quoted in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1977), 92.
[36] Craig (citing N.T. Wright), Reasonable Faith, 372.
[37] 1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB.
[38] Jones, In Defense of the Resurrection, Spring 2010.
[39] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38.
[40] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 156.
[41] Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80. Lüdemann appeals to hallucinations as an explanation.
[42] Luke, Paul, Josephus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen, and Hegesippus. See Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 56-62.
[43] Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1; Tertullian Scorpiace 15.
[44] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 59.
[45] Paul, Creeds (1 Cor. 15:3- , Sermon Summaries (Acts 2), Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Clement of Rome, Polycarp. See Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 51-56.
[46] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 381.
[47] 1 Cor. 15:42-44; Matt. 28:5-6, 9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5-6, 22-24, 30, 39-43; John 20:1-20, 27, 21:13.
[48] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 383.
[49] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 106.
[50] Matt. 28:9, 16-20; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:33-36; John 20:19-30; 21:1-22; Acts 1:3-9.
[51] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 385.
[52] Ibid., 394.
[53] See The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 104-119, and Reasonable Faith, 384-387, for more on the hallucination theory.
[54] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 384.
[55] Acts 2:32, 36, NASB.
[56] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 390.
[57] Ibid., 392.
[58] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 391.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 90.
[61] Ibid., 91.
[62] Ronald Nash, “Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?” Christian Research Journal (Winter 1994), http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0169a.html (accessed May 2, 2010).
[63] Ibid.
[64] C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 2/1 (London: SCM, 1967), 13, as quoted in Craig, Reasonable Faith, 394.
[65] Rom. 1:4.
[66] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 397-399.



_________________
Shiloh Za-RaH

I Am the Darkness of the Purple Dawn and the Light of the Moon Turquoise!



Bluey Dracs
The Presence of the Mosaic implies the will of Unity=God=Starhumanity and not the will of Humanity=Man=Separation!
I Am One in Many and Many in One!
Exe*=1