The Neverending Thread (was SATAN DECEIVES YOU)

[Mustardseed]

Maybe Beth can start with explaining the statement below first , I found it on the net and it sounds quite .....interesting.

(qoute)
Many critics of Christianity claim that the Bible we read today has been changed in major ways since the originals were written.  For example, some have claimed that there are "hundreds of thousands of errors" in our present Bibles.  Some have claimed that the Catholic Church in the fourth and fifth centuries made major revisions of the Bible in order to support their own peculiar doctrine.  Still others have claimed that certain inspired books have been kept out of the Bible (for example the Gospel of Thomas).

       All of these claims rest on the assumption that we do not have available to us the original New Testament writings.  Although it is true that we do not have actual copies of the original manuscripts of the gospels or the letters, what we do have is very solid evidence that the current Greek text of the New Testament is extremely reliable.  

       Our Greek text is based on some very ancient manuscripts.  Some of the most important manuscripts available today are listed below.

1.  The Codex Vaticanus, or Codex B.  The Codex Vaticanus is a vellum codex on 759 pages in uncial script.  The manuscript has been dated to around AD 350 .  It contains the entire New Testament, except Hebrews 9:13-end, I and II Timothy, Titus and Revelation.  It also contains all of the Old Testament in Greek except the first few chapters of Genesis and several Psalms.  The manuscript has been kept in the Vatican since at least 1481.

2.  The Codex Sinaiticus, or Codex Aleph.  The Sinaiticus manuscript received its name because it was discovered at St. Catharines Monastery on Mt. Sainai in 1844 by the biblical scholar Tischendorf.  It was found in a basket of old parchments which were about to be thrown into a fire.  This manuscript is now in the British Museum.  Like the Vatican manuscript, it has been dated to around 350 AD.  It contains much of the Old Testament in Greek, but most significantly, it has the entire New Testament in Greek.

3. The Alexandrian Codex, or Codex A.  This is a fifth-century codex, containing most of the Old Testament and all the New Testament except a few pages of Matthew, two from 1st John and three from 2 Corinthians.  This manuscript was found in Alexandria in Egypt, but was given as a gift to the king of England in 1621. The manuscript is now located on the British Library.

4.  The Washington Manuscript.  This manuscript from the end of the fourth century contains the four gospels.  It is especially significant, as it contains Mark 16:9-20, unlike the three manuscripts already mentioned.

5.  The Chester Beatty Papyri.  This is a collection of a number of papyrus codex fragments, located in the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland.  One of the papyri contains thirty leaves of the New Testament in Greek which have been dated to the late second or early third century (ie. around 200 AD).  Another includes 86 of 104 leaves of the letters of Paul from around from the early third century.

6.  The Bodmer Papyri.  This is a group of manuscripts found in the Bodmer Library of World Literature.  Included are a complete manuscript of Luke and John dated to 175-225 BC, as well as a manuscript of over half of the book of John which has been dated as early as 150 AD.

7.  The John Rylands Fragment.  This papyrus fragment contains only John 18:31-33 and 37,38, which would make it an insignificant find except that it has been dated to 130 AD.  This fragment was copied within fifty years of the death of the apostle John.

       From this list, one can see that we have manuscripts of the entire Bible from about 350 AD and of significant portions of the Bible from around 200 AD or before.  Claims that the New Testament was added to, subtracted from or changed in any significant way are indefensible in the light of this evidence.

        Additional evidence in support of the accuracy of the New Testament we have in our hands today is found in the writings of the early church "fathers."  Writers such as Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr and many others wrote extensively in the first and second centuries AD, quoting from a large proportion of the entire New Testament, providing further evidence in support of the accuracy of our New Testament text.

        As to the claims that there are "hundreds of thousands of errors" in our New Testament text, this is based on the nearly ten thousand manuscripts which we have.  Virtually all the supposed errors are minor slips of the pen of the many scribes who copied the Greek New Testament.   Through careful analysis of the thousands of manuscripts, scholars are able to reproduce a Greek text which is a virtually exact copy of the original.  
(end qoute)

Just thought I would copy it for anyone interested. I figured that since you are calling in the big guns [] We (who believe) might as well look for some info on the net, seing we have no Phd in Mideast studies at some fancy university, []

I look forward to beth

[Mustardseed]

And by the way how about we ( yep it has become us and them [V]) find some experts too. There has got to be someone out there with a Phd in Christianity to help us when beth arrives. How about it lets look on the net and find someone and invite them to the debate. It would be very interesting to say the least

[Beth]

Hello everyone.

Well, I wish my entry into this discussion would have been more pleasant for me.  However, it seems that for some reason, I have already been labeled as an adversary to Christianity.  Wow.  That's too bad.  Do you think it takes a non-Christian scholar and a Christian scholar to hash this out?  Do you really think that only one from each side could accomplish this?  And how do you know what my position is on Christianity?  You have already assumed I am NOT one.  This just shows how some people make erroneous assumptions and develop immediate and unwarranted biases that ultimately lead to the massive alienation present in our world today.  

In my opinion, the tone of this thread is very disheartening.  It is also, in my opinion, very un-Christ-like.

I will not write my posts with a bunch of academic jargon.  I will write in as simple language as is possible.  This is not because I think it is too complicated for simple folk, but rather because it is the language that I prefer to use.  Too many problems have already occurred throughout the centuries by talking "over people's heads."  If anyone wants to get into a more technical discussion, then I will glad to do so, to a certain extent, or I can recommend some good books to get you started.  

DjM, your posts are very close to being correct as I have come to understand Christianity so far.  I agree with where you are going with all of this.  But, I must beg to differ with a few things.  First, it is "Knowledge" that is first and foremost necessary for all understanding.  It IS enough—it is all we have to go on.  Without knowledge, we all fall into error (see paragraph #1 for a common example.)  I cannot speak for you, but, from reading the rest of your posts, I think that a clarification on "knowledge" could be made.  

There are many levels of and ways to acquire knowledge.  One is to take the knowledge that has been compiled before us and learn all that we can from it.  This is the starting point.  

Then there is a more personal knowledge.  This personal knowledge is acquired on an individual basis.  Knowledge of this type ranges anywhere from the conclusions that are drawn from studying the knowledge of others all the way to receiving personal revelations. And yes, DjM, the mystery schools did thrive on this latter form of knowledge.  BUT, before initiates were allowed to learn the ways of acquiring such "higher" knowledge, many years of education were required, and a strong moral fiber must have been formed within.  You are also correct when you say that the esoteric keys are necessary to understand the scriptures.  I have at least a few of these keys that I can share with you.  BUT, I WILL NOT share these in a forum that has the argumentative and negative tone of this one.  I will not use the knowledge that I have in a heated argument about the validity of the current interpretation of Christianity.  And that is all that it is--One interpretation—albeit one that has been well hammered out on the anvil of time.  That interpretation needs no more seeking and no more answers.  All has been found for that one and as far as I am concerned, the book is closed.  Apparently it serves it's believers well enough.

I am much more interested in participating in a discussion about different ways to interpret scripture.  And here is where I must disagree with you again DjM.  Going back to the "beginning" or the "age of Saturn" (whenever that was) is fine, but I would like to know exactly what you mean here. Maybe you could share with us the texts that you speak of.   It was my suggestion to begin with 300 b.c.e.  This date is just a good starting point.  This period is also based upon my own years of study, and I have found that we can learn A LOT from going "back over" the period of 300 b.c.e to 300 c.e.  There is so much history and background material for the development of both Judaism and Christianity that is little known to our society because it was later ignored and not canonized.

Mustardseed, you mentioned in part, some of the texts that must be studied to begin to formulate a more accurate picture of early Christianity--and those texts are the ones that were written by the early Church Fathers.  Your data on the available copies of ancient scriptures all sound correct as well, but if you will notice, with the only exception being small fragments, that all complete NT codices can only be dated back to the 4th century forward.  It was not until 325ish that Christianity even became an established religion when it was chosen by Constantine as the religion of his much dreamed of New Roman Empire.  The Bible as we have it today was actually put together during this time.  The bishops of several Council meetings, spent a very long time hammering out many differences of opinion as well as trying to decide what books should be included and what books should not.  For example, there were many heated debates about he purpose and methods of baptism, the Eucharist (The Lord's Supper,) and the nature of Jesus Christ. Believe it or not, these are all still being debated 1,700 years later. That is why we have Catholics and all the different Protestant branches.  This is also why we have Orthodox, Moderate and Liberal.  At the time, however, the most heated debate was the latter--whether Jesus was fully human and received the holy spirit as an adult, whether he was born partially human and partially divine, or whether he was completely divine merely taking on a physical body as only a deity could do.  They never did come to a complete concensus on this.  On the scriptures: the Pauline Letters, the Gospel of John and Revelation almost didn't make the final cut. There was a great deal of controversy about these texts, but ultimately they were included.  This is no big secret and a little homework can easily verify what I say. Any textbook on the development of Christianity can inform any interested reader.  

Now, previous to there being a "closed canon" of NT scripture, A LOT happened during the first three centuries of this 2,000 year era.  Many books of "scripture" were written and many of these can be found in The Gnostic Gospels and The Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in the mid-20th century. These newly discovered texts shed a great deal of light on these earliest years. There is no way of knowing how many others have been long destroyed--or are yet to be found. The 300 year period previous to the 1st century, and the 300 years previous to the closing of the Christian canon is where there is a lot to learn for everyone whose posts I have read.  These are the writings of the early Church Fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria and many others. There is also the vast body of Jewish midrash that must also be taken into consideration as well as Greek Philosophy which is the over-arching culture within which both Judaism and Christianity flourished.   The first few hundred years of the current era was a VERY different Christianity than we have today.  Yes--they used the same scriptures--BUT it is the INTERPRETATION of those scriptures that is different.  In these arguments about the "validity" of NT scripture--it all depends upon what you are trying to validate.  If you are trying to validate Christianity as we have it today--you have to move further into the future of Church Fathers to find it (post 3rd century.)  If you are trying to validate that there was a very different Christianity in the first century, then the first, second and third century writings is where you will find your info.

An important note about scripture:  Translating from language to language is a very difficult process.  Many times there are not comparable words in the new language that will truly embody the meaning of the word that the originating language meant to convey.  For example, all cultures have their own metaphorical agreements, such as "I slept like a log" or "I feel like a ton of bricks have been lifted from my heart."  These simple phrases that you and I do not have to qualify to each other became a serious problem for biblical translators.  You and I both know that I am not talking about a literal "log" or a literal "ton of bricks."  But that is not always the case.  If someone were to read a statement such as this 300+ years into our future, they may not have clue what we mean.  There are literally thousands of possibilities for error in a book the size and the age of the Bible.  Mustardseed, the Greek NT that we have today is "what we have" to work with, but unless you yourself have studied these ancient forms of Greek and Hebrew (which shares most of its vocabulary with Aramaic,) then you would not pick up on the nuances or possible errors present there.  There were also many such words that originated in Hebrew and Aramaic culture that could not be accurately translated into Greek. Then to complicate matters even further, when the Greek texts became subject to Latin translations, and then again with translations into English, etc., we really cannot be sure what the original speakers "meant" by "looking at the scriptures alone."  We must therefore go to these early non-scriptural writers to get a better look at what they, in their culture and their time period, were perhaps really talking about.  

Now—where do we go from here?  If you are interested in discussing things with all of this in mind, then someone post a particular question that pertains to such. I will be more than glad to help facilitate productive conversations about some of these topics with those who wish to learn more about and explore deeper into the Christian message.  I will share all that I have learned through the years, but I am also counting on learning a lot from all of you as well!  

To start with: within this one thread there are actually many topics being discussed.  Perhaps I am a creature of organization, but to be honest—this is a very messy thread.  For example, if you want to discuss/debate the "inerrancy of biblical scripture" then someone can create a thread for this—
but if you want to discuss/debate "historical evidence of biblical scripture"—that is another topic all together.  The first is a matter of faith—the second of facts. Personally, I do not think that there is much to learn in either one of these topics.  I really don't think it matters, so I would like to see some different questions come up.

I am looking forward to participating in some spiritually healthy discussions.  I will always be candid (and at times perhaps a bit colorful!) but I will not respond to or with insults, nor will I be baited by being called a heretic should my views disagree with yours—and for some of you, my views most surely will.  

If anyone tries to "bait me" in any way—I will ignore you.  If anyone wants to pose a "question"—I will be glad to jump in there.  But if all you have to offer is "doctrinal answers"—then I am already familiar with what you have to say so don't waste your time on me.  Create a thread that can become a forum for people who do not yet about what you have to offer.  Your position is a starting point, but I have already "been there and done that" and am ready to move on.

Just for the record:  I embrace the prerogative to be wrong.  For me, the "Truth" changes as I spiritually grow and mature.  I have lost count of how many times "Truth" has changed for me in my life.  God is constantly offering me the opportunity for more growth, and it is my daily prayer that I always avail myself to those opportunities and listen intently for that guidance.

SO--let the discussions continue.

[Soulfire]

Hi,

I have not been following this topic since it got stale for me a couple weeks ago.  Beth, I posted a question in your other thread entitled "Original Christianity vs. Today's Christianity".  You have touched on some of the aspects I questioned you about in that thread here, but I had not yet read it when I posted my reply.  I would greatly appreciate more information as requested in that other thread when you get a chance?  Thank you.  

--Soulfire

[Mustardseed]

Thankyou for taking your time Beth sure is nice to have you here and I for one am very much looking forward to it. If you read the thread (I dont blame you if you dont have time ha ) anyway you will find out that it all started with Alanon posting his "warning" it slowly progressed into a more philosofical discussion and I personally entered when RB threw out a challenge ( well actually he said baited I think [])for anyone that he was confident that there was not a schred of historical evidence to prove the Bible was anything but a work of fiction. I found that to be somewhat biased and did some research and found the above. Personally I am much more interested in the intrepretation of the scriptures and how modern day evangelicals imn my opinion, "twist" them to use a Bible term , to suit their own purpose. It did however,sound like you were called in to help support  RBs claim that the entire Bible was a fake. I found that ....(just erased offensive) well a bit steep, and as I have no Phd and would be out of my leaque debating that with you , I suggested for someone with knowledge of these things to come forth. It was in no way meant to be a hostile act (I tried to include some of those little smilis but probably sound too serious)ha . I never posted on a list before and have not got a whole lot of experience with stuf like that. Anyway all that said .....welcome []

[Beth]

Thank you Mustardseed!  

This is by far--NOT an easy topic. It is probably the most debated topic in Western Civilization for almost the entire 2,000 years since it all began!!  And--I do not presume for a second that the debate will stop here!! The best that we can do is learn what we can--as we go along.  There is so much to learn--an NO ONE human being has all the answers.  It will take experiences and understandings from many different people and many time periods to really begin to find understanding.

It is good to be here!  I look forward to it as well![]

[Robert Bruce]

G'day Folks!

First, a big welcome to Beth!  Thank you so much for taking the time to join us here. I'm sure we all have a lot to share and teach and learn. I look fwd to these threads unfolding with great interest.


Take care, Robert.

[Robert Bruce]

G'day Folks!

To reply to Allanon/NP's question... on what I consider Jesus to be.
This depends on whether one is talking about Jesus the man, or Jesus the Christ.

All things considered, Jesus appears to be a great initiate and ascended master.


Take care, Robert.

[Narrow Path]

quote:Just for the record: I embrace the prerogative to be wrong. For me, the "Truth" changes as I spiritually grow and mature. I have lost count of how many times "Truth" has changed for me in my life. God is constantly offering me the opportunity for more growth, and it is my daily prayer that I always avail myself to those opportunities and listen intently for that guidance.

The Truth is the Truth and does not change. With a mind blinded by sin, the light is impossible to tell from the darkness unless there is a renewing of your mind from the Holy Spirit.

One thing I have noticed for those claiming to be Truth seekers in this day and age is the overwhelming stench of uncertainty.

In Christ the search ends.

The Truth yesterday is not the same Truth today for those that are not in the Body of Christ. The twin towers of moral relativism and self worship are all too evident in this forum, and this country as a whole.

Since we have an "expert" in Beth here I am interested what your basic epistemological views are?

Beth, do you believe in Objective Truth?

This should help me limit the topic we are discussing.

BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD WAS TO DISCUSS THE DANGEROUS NATURE OF ASTRAL PROJECTION FOR THE UN - REDEEMED.

[DjM]

quote:Originally posted by Beth

DjM, your posts are very close to being correct as I have come to understand Christianity so far.  I agree with where you are going with all of this.  But, I must beg to differ with a few things.  
[/br]

Evolution progresses via diferentiation.

quote:

First, it is "Knowledge" that is first and foremost necessary for all understanding.  It IS enough—it is all we have to go on.  Without knowledge, we all fall into error (see paragraph #1 for a common example.)  I cannot speak for you, but, from reading the rest of your posts, I think that a clarification on "knowledge" could be made.
[/br]

 

This is a world of constant change.  Knowledge becomes obsolete (i.e. fleeting).  It is true, we must acquire knowledge to build on.  However, we must strive for WISDOM and not knowledge, per se.

Without morality, our world will crumble.  Morality can ONLY be acquired after the culmination of a long striving for WISDOM.  If we could teach wisdom, we'd all be wise.  The truth is: without wisdom, we all fall into error.  Personally, I'll trade knowledge for wisdom any day!  If one understands what we take through the gates of death, one would certainly concur.

Our current state of evolution will not enable us to understand it all- simply put.  Science presents the knowledge of the day devoid of spirit.  Ergo, we are far from the truth.  However, they are still presenting KNOWLEDGE.  This is not wise...

quote:[/br]
There are many levels of and ways to acquire knowledge.  One is to take the knowledge that has been compiled before us and learn all that we can from it.  This is the starting point.
[/br]

If this knowledge does not incorporate the spirit, it is incomplete and incorrect.  One cannot understand the world of effects, unless one studies the world of causes.

Much of the knowledge that has been passed on is void of the spirit.  (I'll leave the details up to you.)  The spiritual scientist understand where/how these bits exist and knows how to fix them.

quote:

Then there is a more personal knowledge.  This personal knowledge is acquired on an individual basis.  Knowledge of this type ranges anywhere from the conclusions that are drawn from studying the knowledge of others all the way to receiving personal revelations.
[/br]

The life we live between birth and death is a continuation of the life between death and rebirth.  We're here for the experience.  One must be careful when one accepts the conclusions drawn from others.  Science makes these mistakes all the time.

quote:

And yes, DjM, the mystery schools did thrive on this latter form of knowledge.  BUT, before initiates were allowed to learn the ways of acquiring such "higher" knowledge, many years of education were required, and a strong moral fiber must have been formed within.  
[/br]

I have been well taught and am quite aware of exactly what's required of an initiate (hint, hint).

quote:

You are also correct when you say that the esoteric keys are necessary to understand the scriptures.  I have at least a few of these keys that I can share with you.  BUT, I WILL NOT share these in a forum that has the argumentative and negative tone of this one.  
[/br]

Personally, I will not share them at all.  These keys are only to be gotten by degrees.  The Mysteries were betrayed in Atlantis!  The definition of insanity is making the same mistakes over and over...

quote:

I will not use the knowledge that I have in a heated argument about the validity of the current interpretation of Christianity.  And that is all that it is--One interpretation—albeit one that has been well hammered out on the anvil of time.  That interpretation needs no more seeking and no more answers.  All has been found for that one and as far as I am concerned, the book is closed.  Apparently it serves it's believers well enough.
[/br]

I will use the understanding that I have earned for the benefit of mankind.  The truth is eternal.  We never stop seeking the truth.

All religions have been necessary.  It would be incorrect to claim that one's own religion is superior to another.  However, there is no religion greather than truth.

quote:

I am much more interested in participating in a discussion about different ways to interpret scripture.
[/br]

The Gospels are a perfect example of different ways to interpret the truth.  More precisely, each apostle was an initiate of a varying degree.  So, we have each initiate's opinion according to their understanding.

The truth holds many answers.  However, "interpretations" are usually singular.  More specifially,  the authors usually had one interpreation in mind that pointed at an understanding that revealed many answers.

quote:

 And here is where I must disagree with you again DjM.  Going back to the "beginning" or the "age of Saturn" (whenever that was) is fine, but I would like to know exactly what you mean here. Maybe you could share with us the texts that you speak of.
[/br]

Surely, you are aware of the Saturn , Sun, Moon, Earth, etc... periods of human evolution?  Without out this "key," one cannot claim to understand our present stage of evolution, which explains the necessity of religion.

quote:

  It was my suggestion to begin with 300 b.c.e.  This date is just a good starting point.  This period is also based upon my own years of study, and I have found that we can learn A LOT from going "back over" the period of 300 b.c.e to 300 c.e.  There is so much history and background material for the development of both Judaism and Christianity that is little known to our society because it was later ignored and not canonized.

I see.  Would it not be more correct to begin with the first religion and discuss how/why it came about?  The periods that you mention would then reflect their own necessity.

It's a curiosity to me that you never mention the most important aspect of all- the ever-changing constitution of man!  It is religion that has been adapted for man and not the other way around.  One must understand how/why mankind has changed through each period in order to understand how/why religion has changed.

[DjM]

quote:
Originally posted by Narrow Path
Just for the record: I embrace the prerogative to be wrong.

Personally, I do not "embrace the priviledge" to be wrong concerning spiritual issues.  However, it's your perogative.

quote:
The Truth is the Truth and does not change. With a mind blinded by sin, the light is impossible to tell from the darkness unless there is a renewing of your mind from the Holy Spirit.

The truth is eternal.  We never stop seeking the truth.  With a mind blinded by predjudice, there can be no light- period.  One must be "like the child" who does not hold jaded views.  Everything in the spiritual world is ever-changing.  The opposite is death, which you described quite well.

quote:
One thing I have noticed for those claiming to be Truth seekers in this day and age is the overwhelming stench of uncertainty.

Are you sure?  I AM quite certain that I AM a truth seeker.

quote:
In Christ the search ends.

In Christ the search BEGINS...

quote:
The Truth yesterday is not the same Truth today for those that are not in the Body of Christ. The twin towers of moral relativism and self worship are all too evident in this forum, and this country as a whole.

Have you always felt this way?

quote:
Since we have an "expert" in Beth here I am interested what your basic epistemological views are?

Why are you mocking someone who moves toward understanding, when you do not?

Your ego/I appears to need to compare other people's views to your own and condemn them if they don't match your own.  What a curiosity?  We're all at different levels of spiritual development, so there will always be a variance.

quote:
Beth, do you believe in Objective Truth?

This should help me limit the topic we are discussing.

BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD WAS TO DISCUSS THE DANGEROUS NATURE OF ASTRAL PROJECTION FOR THE UN - REDEEMED.

It's quite obvious that we are helping you.  You certainly deserve a lot of help.  Its interesting to note that your ego believes this thread is to "help you limit the topic we are discussing."  You certainly have placed limitations on us all.

THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS SITE IS TO DISCUSS THE SPIRITUAL WORLD AND THE DANGEROUS NATURE (i.e. underdeveloped) OF NOT DOING SO.

[Passionate-fool]

Dear Heavenly Father, I humbly bow before Your Love shown thru Your gift of Christ's blood.  I thank You and praise You for rescueing me from my slavery.  I praise You for giving me the whisper in the dark proclaiming Your Glory and The Promise of living for eternity in the fullness of Your embrace.  I want nothing more than to know You and to let You show yourself thru me.  I pray that the words that have been written by these hands in the Spirit of Love will have power to proclaim Your goodness.  As always Lord, not my will be done, but Yours.

Amen.

   As I see it, by the Light that God has chosen to show me and I was able to see, this whole conversation has constantly been taken down tangents that are relevant to the topic, but miss the main "meat" of the point.  Was Jesus really the Son of God and did He die for our sins, thus making Him our Savior?   I believe the answer to these questions is YES!  With that said, I guess I must try to explain.  As is natural, and perfectly acceptable to my mind, people share the bible with others to show the story of Salvation.  To say to a friend who is in need of comfort "Here's what the bible says!".  This method is a wonderful and ultimately the only way to truely share the Good News of the Gospel of Christ.  But how to share the story of Salvation to people who passionately, vehemently, and, yes, even violently reject the Book of Truth, The Gospel of Christ?  I can't.  So I must come full circle again.  I can't bring to you any shred of the taste, touch, smell, hear, and see evidence that won't be out of hand rejected as conjecture and subjective to this, that, and the other thing.  So I am going to try and appeal to your emotional logic.  

So far, as far as I can see, the more serious thinkers on this topic agree that the bible does hold some "spiritual truth".  Yet, they reject that it has THE spiritual Truth.  Reasons mostly including: passed down from generation to generation.  written and re-written.  Translated and re-translated.  Tampered with by the church and the list goes on.  The arguements seem reasonable.  They are reasonable, IF your assumption is that evil has the power of corrupting a perfect message.  But, if your assumption is that God is Almighty and all Loving, then you must believe He would make sure that whatever message He wants to convey to us as humans would be beyond mans ability to touch.  This is not to say that some things in the bible have not been touched.  The whole of the bible has been altered from its original format.  It had to be for us to even read it today.  So, this text we call the bible has been passed down, written and re-written so the people of whatever day and age they are in can get what they can from it.  Just like Homer's Illiad or Ovid's erotic poems.  Both of these manuscripts have had the same thing done to them as the bible has.  Yet, when we read Homer's Illiad (in an alteration of its original form) we see great depth and imagination along with a few moral points here and there.  We take it for whatever story it conveys.  To put it more succinctly, even though it has had all manners of changes and potential errors made to it we still understand the message it conveys.  The difference here though is that no one expects us to take these other ancient texts as statement of fact.  Why, I ask, does no one expect us to take these stories as literal.  I would put forth as an explanation that as we read the texts and absorb the stories we subconciously test the ideas involved to see if they mesh with our sense of reality.  Of course, in all most all cases they do not.  So, now we have A common thought of what reality is not.  Yet, how do we really know for sure that Homer's Illiad wasn't written intended to be read as fact.  Or when Ovid relates the interactions of men and women to how they relate with the interactions of the gods between themselves.  Of course we have ways to get a "good idea" whether it was intended to be taken literally or not.  But, in the end we have no way of really knowing because we weren't there.  These same principles can hold true for the bible as well.  They hold true for the koran.  They hold true for every historical text.  We must take everything, when we get to the core, on faith.  Just because the sun rose today doesn't mean it will tomorrow, but we're pretty darned sure it will.  Thats all that gets prooved by science.  So, what is it you have faith in?  What do we believe will solve "The Problem".  I believe most of us here do believe that there is something terribly wrong with ourselves and the world we live in.

   So, how does any of that have to do with the bible being God's holy word.  Because it says it is, and I have faith that God is Almighty and all Loving.  Yes, your faith in what you believe is as good as my faith in my beliefs.  So, lets take a look at the root difference between a Christian and anyone else.  This difference is control.  Who's in control? Are you in control?  Or, is God.  Is your faith in your own ability to be good?  Yes it is a very nice thing to be a "good person".  I even wishfully admire people who have acquired the fine art of discipline and adherence to the laws of right and wrong.  God knows i'm a miserable example.  But, in the end, to who goes the credit?  Ourselves.  Faith in ourselves. That is what every other belief system offers.  Its not wrong for wanting to be good.  It is just wrong to think that you are the source of "goodness".  Let us not think,the statement "God is good" to mean that God is a "good person", as though we could define Him in such limited and earthly terms.  But, He is actual goodness.  The very essence of whatever goodness is!  So, when attempting to "BE" good you are actually attempting to usurp God's place.  The original sin.  Lucifer wanted to BE God.  Adam and Eve ate of the fruit because they were tricked by Lucifer into believeing that if they did eat they could be as God.  They exercised their free will by putting their faith in themselves.  You, are not good.  Only God is good, and goodness can only be gotten from Him.  For those of you who believe we are God, I would have to say that this cannot be and there is a line of logic to come to that conclusion as well which I will not include here for purpose of length.

   This is the difference between Christians and all others.  They admit to the fact that we as humans have put our faith in ourselves.  We are in control.  They realize that we are botching it up miserably, as can be seen everywhere you look.  The rape of the land, oceans, forest, men, women, and children!  So, with their free will they choose to believe God's holy word that we cannot BE good.  We submit our will back to God, we give up control, by accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.  And, like children who admire our older sibling we do our best to mimmic Christ.  We want to be like Christ, but realize we will never be Him.  So,we "watch" Him, thru reading the bible, prayer, and community with other believers.  We do our best to take note of His actions and to do our best to immitate Him.  Most importantly of all though, we "die" with Him.  We no longer want choice between good and evil.  We no longer want control.  We only want to know God.  Nothing else matters.  All else is dust and ashes.  But, we are still in control and that is our struggle.  Our pride, is as great as your pride.  That is why we Christians fail as badly as everyone else.  

   We are the enemy my friends.  All of us.  In rebel territory, under the rule of a hate-ful prince.  God's army presses in all about our borders.  He is rallying His creations to His banner.  He is coming to finally free us.  That is why Narrow Path and exogen and other people such as myself come here to "preach".  We feel that call.  We must try, in our imperfect ways, to show you "the Way, the Truth, and the Life".  So you can feel that call! I beg you, abandon yourself to the Love of Christ with me!

Let us worship the Lord, for He is good!

Your brother in Christ,

Passionate-Fool.

[Beth]

DjM-

You wrote:

quote:Surely, you are aware of the Saturn , Sun, Moon, Earth, etc... periods of human evolution? Without out this "key," one cannot claim to understand our present stage of evolution, which explains the necessity of religion.

Actually, not until yesterday did I become aware of what you speak about the Saturn, Sun, Moon, Earth, etc. periods.  I have obviously not been trained in your mystery school.  To speak of these temporal eras are way beyond the scope of what I am trying to deal with here.  My posts concerned the "hermeneutical keys" to the Christian Scriptures (The Hebrew Bible and the NT.)  I do not claim to possess any "keys" that can address our current stage of evolution or the need for religion in the first place.  

As to the secret of these "keys" that I speak of -- for the most part they can all be found in a number of books that you can buy from amazon.com.  I only meant that I was not going to share what I have learned or what my work with these keys has revealed in a heated/negative religiously prejudice forum.  

quote:This is a world of constant change. Knowledge becomes obsolete (i.e. fleeting). It is true, we must acquire knowledge to build on. However, we must strive for WISDOM and not knowledge, per se. Without morality, our world will crumble. Morality can ONLY be acquired after the culmination of a long striving for WISDOM. If we could teach wisdom, we'd all be wise. The truth is: without wisdom, we all fall into error. Personally, I'll trade knowledge for wisdom any day! If one understands what we take through the gates of death, one would certainly concur.

I have found that knowledge is the prerequisite to wisdom.  In my opinion--without knowledge you cannot possibly attain wisdom.  I do not see how it can be an either or thing. And once again, my posts were not concerning an overarching wisdom about what we take through the gates of death.  I cannot speak of such things, for I do not know.

quote:It's a curiosity to me that you never mention the most important aspect of all- the ever-changing constitution of man! It is religion that has been adapted for man and not the other way around. One must understand how/why mankind has changed through each period in order to understand how/why religion has changed.

 
Once again, this goes way beyond the scope of what I was addressing.  But I will add here that man creates religion to suit mankind's needs. I cannot reference who said this, but I remember reading "God created man in the divine image, and man has been returning the favor ever since."!!!  I imagine that the world of the spirit is way beyond our narrow scope of religion, and the world of spirit uses religion to address us on the level to which we have the capacity to understand.

To Allanon: what my "epistemological" views are is irrelevant to this particular discussion, as is my personal spiritual path.  I am not here to preach any particular doctrine, but only to share what I have learned about biblical scripture.  My spiritual status and path are my personal business, and I will reveal what that is when I feel comfortable doing so. And this is not a very comfortable forum so far.  

In any constructive conversation/debate everyone needs to be on "the same page."  This thread and the contents found here are "all over the place."  If someone wants to discuss epistemology then open a thread for that.  If someone wants to discuss the evolution of humankind or speculate on the spiritual world, then start individual threads for these. It seems like this is more of a forum to "toot horns" over their personal "spiritual evolution" or even worse their "spiritual status."  I am not into spiritual arrogance.

May peace and understanding somehow reach us all.

[Soulfire]

Hi Passionate-fool,

I do not feel tat I take credit for my own goodness or salvation.  I believe God gave me everything, including the potential and desire to become good, and each and every opportunity I have to learn and grow.  I believe everyting I am or ever will become is from God.  But I believe God ultimately lets me decide whether or not to take advantage of each and every "opportunity".  So everything that is "me" is from God.  I don't even feel that I can "take crdit" for making the decisions to take advantage of the opportunites to be "good", because without God and the rest of his creation I would not have had the minimum level of love, goodness, or wisdom to perceive or take advantage of those "opportunities".  To the extent that we "contribute" to our own goodness, is also the direct result of God's gifts.

The only ways I disagree with you is that I do not believe I have to accept Jesus's ritual sacrifice or worship Jesus to be saved or to honor God.  I also feel that God grants us absolute free will.  If this is true, then the belief that God would "ensure" the complete accuracy of his word through a particular book would seem to violate the free will he gave us.  You cannot guarantee a specific instance of anything being created by or through human beings without either taking away the free will of the people involved in certain ways, or taking away the free will that people use to decide who will be involved in the process of it's creation.  Since I believe God's truth is available to us through an infinite number of ways, that the Bible being "infallible" is simply not necessary.

If I wanted to, I could write my own Bible, call it the so and so version of the Holy Bible, and fill it with a pack of malicious lies.  If I had enough charisma to convince other people that I was "right", you would have a pretty "nasty" version of the "Holy Bible" floating around.  The thing here is that God would still find a way to use even such a perversion to bring about the higher good in the long term as seen from a higher perspective.  I believe God uses everything, not just the Bible.  To me, it is not that the Bible (or any other instance of creation) is "infallable", but that God is "infallable".

--Soulfire

[Akensai]

quote:As to the secret of these "keys" that I speak of -- for the most part they can all be found in a number of books that you can buy from amazon.com. I only meant that I was not going to share what I have learned or what my work with these keys has revealed in a heated/negative religiously prejudice forum.

Would you mind telling the name of few of those books ?

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth and Robert and all
Please forgive me if I appear stubborn about my views, I am truly trying to usderstand your point but am having some difficulty. My problem is this.

The challenge that was thrown out by Robert was, that there is not one shred of archaeologic evidence, proving that the Bible is anything but a made up book. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT AT HAND!!!. In other words, the account of the events in it, i.e. the birth life and death of Jesus, are fake nil and void and but a fairytale. This is how I took it, correct me if I am wrong !!!  People responded in various ways, and I also did some very simple research on the net and found the stuf below plus a mass of other similar info. Robert then responded to the below by asking Beth to participate, but after Beth arrived this has not really been the focus. Instead the focus has shifted to, what is written therein (The Bible). How it has layers, like an onion or a ogre []. This was not the question, at least not to begin with. We are now drawn into this big very complicated but very very interesting debate, or lecture rather, by you Beth,(and I do find it facinating) who obviously has a lot of knowledge about these things.

The fact remains that I have heard nothing from you to disprove the account in the Bible, specifically the fact that a guy namned Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago and made some pretty big claims about his identity. Since YOU or Robert were not there and have so far shown me nothing to base your view on, (I seem to understand your belief is, that the Bible is a fake).I will have to restate that, it seems to me your doubt in the Bible the sacrefice of Jesus etc is nothing but a BELIEF. Thus I find it easier to agree to disagree. I have no problem with you having a different faith than me, but the challenge Robert threw out appears to be based on HIS faith and not some wealth of archealogic findings, disproving the Bible. Do you agree on that Robert?? Allthough I did feel it was wierd to be called untrue (normally one is innocent till proven guilty!!)and having to justify my Belief in the Bible, I did and though you passed over it very lightly you seem to agree that the below referances are correct and valid. It seems clear that the scriptures were written way back, but why and how and for what reason is still somewhat of a mystery.!!Am I right in assuming this??

On another note I find it somewhat  unfair that this forum will single out Christianity and yet be open for beliefs of the most outrageous kind, agression and every form of odd wierd belief system without challenging or questioning them, but I guess you do have other things to do than sit at the computer all day , so that might be why []. People here on the forum are talking with aliens and folks from the stars for goodness sakes [xx(]and that is believed or accepted as a possibility. Carlos Castaneda, though by his own admission is a fake is heralded as a great Spiritual teacher etc. To me, the madness is overwhelming and it seems like pure and simple SPIRITUAL ANARKY . No absolutes no rules no right no wrong. Take whatever you wish and proclaim it God, a rock a crystel yourself of the Pleiadeans or whatever they are called. A SPIRITUAL SMORGASBORD and BUFFET style dining room, where people fix their own meal according to taste. Is this the way you believe the astral / spiritual world works?

I am totally in agreement though, that the Bible is not lived by the vast majority of proclaimed Christians and that the Churches are in gross darkness and their using the scripture as a justification is outrageous and erroneous . The Bible and early Christianity is way deeper and very icnoclastic eto say the least. Anyway they will have their reward and are much more accountable Jesus said to the Church of his day the scribes and faricees "because you say you see therefor your sin remains".

To sum it up I find it, as I said problematic, that you will not admit that the BELIEF in the Bible as a REAL manuscript (although possibly changed altered and taken to and taken from) is a possibility, and  I can only conclude that you resist admitting tothis possibility becourse it would mean YOU COULD BE WRONG. !!!!!!!!What do you think!!

I sense in both of you as well as in some of the moderators a very exclusivism sort of attitude . A sort of condesending tone (I hope it is not so) , that you are more knowledgable , teachers and not really as I had hoped, fellow travelers. I have in every way tried to see you as equals and respect you and learn from you seeing we share a very pivotal experience , having OBEs, but sadly I do not feel it is recipocated. I believe this intuitive feeling to be the Spirit of God and what we Christians call dicernment. I furthermore think that you should consider the possibility that you have built around yourselves a BELIEF SYSTEM, that matches your experience. That you work in reverse. I think you have rejected the notion or possibility of something higher than you, behind it all, a creator if you will , and have changed it to the "overself" etc It is all in you and you have made yourselves God.

I include the stuf I found on the net by a guy called John Oakes , it is really beyound me but sounds valid enough to be included in the discussion.

(qoute)
Many critics of Christianity claim that the Bible we read today has been changed in major ways since the originals were written.  For example, some have claimed that there are "hundreds of thousands of errors" in our present Bibles.  Some have claimed that the Catholic Church in the fourth and fifth centuries made major revisions of the Bible in order to support their own peculiar doctrine.  Still others have claimed that certain inspired books have been kept out of the Bible (for example the Gospel of Thomas).

       All of these claims rest on the assumption that we do not have available to us the original New Testament writings.  Although it is true that we do not have actual copies of the original manuscripts of the gospels or the letters, what we do have is very solid evidence that the current Greek text of the New Testament is extremely reliable.  

       Our Greek text is based on some very ancient manuscripts.  Some of the most important manuscripts available today are listed below.

1.  The Codex Vaticanus, or Codex B.  The Codex Vaticanus is a vellum codex on 759 pages in uncial script.  The manuscript has been dated to around AD 350 .  It contains the entire New Testament, except Hebrews 9:13-end, I and II Timothy, Titus and Revelation.  It also contains all of the Old Testament in Greek except the first few chapters of Genesis and several Psalms.  The manuscript has been kept in the Vatican since at least 1481.

2.  The Codex Sinaiticus, or Codex Aleph.  The Sinaiticus manuscript received its name because it was discovered at St. Catharines Monastery on Mt. Sainai in 1844 by the biblical scholar Tischendorf.  It was found in a basket of old parchments which were about to be thrown into a fire.  This manuscript is now in the British Museum.  Like the Vatican manuscript, it has been dated to around 350 AD.  It contains much of the Old Testament in Greek, but most significantly, it has the entire New Testament in Greek.

3. The Alexandrian Codex, or Codex A.  This is a fifth-century codex, containing most of the Old Testament and all the New Testament except a few pages of Matthew, two from 1st John and three from 2 Corinthians.  This manuscript was found in Alexandria in Egypt, but was given as a gift to the king of England in 1621. The manuscript is now located on the British Library.

4.  The Washington Manuscript.  This manuscript from the end of the fourth century contains the four gospels.  It is especially significant, as it contains Mark 16:9-20, unlike the three manuscripts already mentioned.

5.  The Chester Beatty Papyri.  This is a collection of a number of papyrus codex fragments, located in the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland.  One of the papyri contains thirty leaves of the New Testament in Greek which have been dated to the late second or early third century (ie. around 200 AD).  Another includes 86 of 104 leaves of the letters of Paul from around from the early third century.

6.  The Bodmer Papyri.  This is a group of manuscripts found in the Bodmer Library of World Literature.  Included are a complete manuscript of Luke and John dated to 175-225 BC, as well as a manuscript of over half of the book of John which has been dated as early as 150 AD.

7.  The John Rylands Fragment.  This papyrus fragment contains only John 18:31-33 and 37,38, which would make it an insignificant find except that it has been dated to 130 AD.  This fragment was copied within fifty years of the death of the apostle John.

       From this list, one can see that we have manuscripts of the entire Bible from about 350 AD and of significant portions of the Bible from around 200 AD or before.  Claims that the New Testament was added to, subtracted from or changed in any significant way are indefensible in the light of this evidence.

        Additional evidence in support of the accuracy of the New Testament we have in our hands today is found in the writings of the early church "fathers."  Writers such as Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr and many others wrote extensively in the first and second centuries AD, quoting from a large proportion of the entire New Testament, providing further evidence in support of the accuracy of our New Testament text.

        As to the claims that there are "hundreds of thousands of errors" in our New Testament text, this is based on the nearly ten thousand manuscripts which we have.  Virtually all the supposed errors are minor slips of the pen of the many scribes who copied the Greek New Testament.   Through careful analysis of the thousands of manuscripts, scholars are able to reproduce a Greek text which is a virtually exact copy of the original.  
(end qoute)

My kindest regards and thanks for the time you have spent and are spending on this subject.

Mustardseed

PS I do apologise if I sound severe, I am very challenged by the conversation and still believe you have been shown some very important truths. In order to lighten the above missive please place these smilies where ever you feel I get too serious or stern[][][][:I][)][][xx(][][][]

[Tab]

quote:Originally posted by DjM

 there is no religion greather than truth.

omgwtf Blavatsky reincarnated

quote:Originally posted by Passionate-fool

A bunch of jesus stuff

omg allanon reincarnated.. again... with worse grammar.



Theosophists seem to be the more arrogant of their kind.. whether it's justified arrogance or not I couldn't say.
I can say that because I'm a wanna be myself

[Narrow Path]

quote:omg allanon reincarnated.. again... with worse grammar.



Theosophists seem to be the more arrogant of their kind.. whether it's justified arrogance or not I couldn't say.
I can say that because I'm a wanna be myself

Hey Tab why not go somewhere else and spread your ignorance.

Have a little respect for people or get out of my thread.
If you have anything to contribute concerning the subject do so, if not GO TALK ABOUT MEDIUMSHIP OR SOME OTHER OCCULT CRAP.

Thank You.

[Narrow Path]

quote:The only ways I disagree with you is that I do not believe I have to accept Jesus's ritual sacrifice or worship Jesus to be saved or to honor God.

Then you are not a Christian. There is no common belief among you.

A Christian puts Jesus first.

All others put man first.

Simple.

[Narrow Path]

Robert and Beth,

There have been previous posts here dealing with the HISTORICAL PROOF that you wanted.

Please respond to these.

[Soulfire]

quote:Originally posted by Narrow Path

quote:The only ways I disagree with you is that I do not believe I have to accept Jesus's ritual sacrifice or worship Jesus to be saved or to honor God.

Then you are not a Christian. There is no common belief among you.

A Christian puts Jesus first.

All others put man first.

Simple.

Not so simple, and also not so accurate.  True, I am not a Christian.  However, I do not put "man" first - I put God first.

You seem to believe that because I do not worship Jesus as God, that I cannot worship God at all.  I understand why you believe that, but I do not feel it is "accurate".  I also do not feel that such a belief and judgement on your part reflects very much of the love of Christ.

--Soulfire

[Beth]

Narrow Path:

I have seen no "historical proof."

Besides, written "History" is NEVER the WHOLE TRUTH.  "History" is always decided upon by the one that is speaking/writing at the time. There are always at least two sides to every story--and usually more than two. Further, no two people ever remember a shared experience "exactly the same way" even just hours later.  This is ever more exacerbated when it involves countless people over hundreds of years.  In the case of Western Civilization, Christianity "wrote the history books" that were used for centuries--and for very good reasons not many people argued with the Chruch--think Galileo and where the earth is actually now known to be located in relationship to the rest of the solar system. Thank goodness things are very different today.  

I have NEVER denied that Christianity has a "history." Christianity has a very long and complex history.  To make a claim that it does not, would be totally absurd on my part.  Scripture however, has NOT been proven to be a "factual" historical document in and of itself, but you are not going to learn in Church how or why that is the case. Why would they want to teach that it is not?  To believe in the NT as "history" is a matter of faith and belief, and no one here could argue that your faith and belief are extremely important to you.  If being a Christian helps you to be a peaceful loving person in the image that the NT offers of Jesus, then I have no argument that.  But Narrow Path, you just don't sound very peaceful--or very loving.

[Soulfire]

Hi,

I do not believe Beth came here to "debunk the Bible".  I think she is just trying to show ways that the Bible has value that are not purely literal interpretations.

As for having documents dating back to 350AD that are accurate reflections of the Bible's contents, think about that for a second.  That means that the closest semi-complete set of records you have about those events was written THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus died.  Can you imagine what you would have if somebody wrote their personal account of the 9/11 or the OJ trial in year 2300?  I don't know offhand what the average life expectance was in those days, but think about how many generations passed in 300 years.

Don't get me wrong, I have said many times that I firmly believe the Bible contains a LOT of truth, even if you just take it at face value.  But if you do take everything at face value, there are also a lot of contradictions.  I think what Beth is saying is that most of those supposed contradictions "go away" if you look beyond the literal level.  I do not know nearly everything she does, but a lot of what she sais makes absolute sense.  I can at least see the possibilities of what she is saying.

I honestly think you are a little too caught up in perceiving this as an "us" vs "them" battle that is limiting your ability to clearly understand what people are trying to say.  Beth is not your enemy here.  Nobody is your enemy here.  

--Soulfire

[Mustardseed]

(You said)I have seen no "historical proof.".......Besides, written "History" is NEVER the WHOLE TRUTH.

(Answer)
I compleately agree with you there, those were actually my words earlier in the thread,history books are written by the folks who win the war. But How can you disagree with the literature list that I included saying it is flawed and not conclusive while at the same time include qoutes of your own and literature lists expecting us all to take them as more truthful. That is not consistant. (and this is not even mentioning your "Key" research which I certainly would call a theory and not actual historical evidence.)
---------------------------------------------------
(you said)
There are always at least two sides to every story--and usually more than two. Further, no two people ever remember a shared experience "exactly the same way" even just hours later.  This is ever more exacerbated when it involves countless people over hundreds of years.

(answer)
I agree again and state as above. What makes your version more correct your books more accurate. This principle goes all the way around Beth.  
----------------------------------------------------
(you said)
I have NEVER denied that Christianity has a "history."

(answer)
No I never said you did, The issue at hand is (and I repeat) Robert said something like (dont have time to get the actual qoute) there is not one shred of archeological evidence that the Bible is anything but a fake. In other words it must then be a lie, Jesus is then a fiction of someones imagination. and a fairytale. This was the thread and the discussion.
-------------------------------------------------
(you said)Scripture however, has NOT been proven to be a "factual" historical document in and of itself.

(answer)
Well then you believe that the litereture and statements I included above are fake, made up, or misintrepretated. Please tell me what you base this claim on!!I also never said it was factual accurate but SUPERNATURAL  ALIVE and has a life of its own."  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God , The WORD WAS MADE FLESH and dwelt among us and we beheld its glore the glory as of the only begotten Son of God full of Grace and TRUTH.
-----------------------------------------------------
(you said ) To believe in the NT as "history" is a matter of faith and belief,

(Answer ) Please read my post. I never said otherwise and I stated that I believe in it !!However by the same account I have not yet seen you disprove that it could have happened the way I explained. That God has a Son that he was put to death for our sins and lives today in the Spirit and empowers believers from there with his Holy Spirit. The changes and ommisions and the whole cabodle taken into consideration. If the Bible and the words therein is a LIVING THING as we Christians believe , they could have found their way down through the ages and still be the Word of God. This is my point and I think that you should be more academic or whatever and not just say "you cant prove thet" I DONT HAVE TO. You should prove that it is fake could not have happened is impossible and without doubt a lie.
-------------------------------------------------------

Regards Mustardseed

[Mustardseed]

Here is some more info and what I believe to be proof at least it sounds plausible it concerns a Josephus Flavius a much respected secular writer and historian from the 1st century. Try to search on his name and you might score as much as 500.000 hits in all languages.

Josephus was born in 37 A.D., just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. He was the son of a priest named Matthias and at the age of 19 he became a Pharisee in Jerusalem. Later in his life he was appointed a commander in Galilee during the Jewish revolt against Rome.
     After surrendering to the Romans, he was taken before the Roman Commander Vespasian and prophesied that God had shown him in a dream that Vespasian and his son Titus would soon become Emperor's of Rome. Shortly afterwards the dream became reality and Josephus became a member of Vespasian's household. During his stay in Rome he wrote two works dealing with Jewish history.
     
In his work entitled Jewish Antiquities, which was written between 70 and 100 A.D., he mentions Jesus the Messiah.  Josephus is quoted below by Eusebius, an early Christian Bishop, in 324 A.D.:
   
          "It was during this timeframe that Jesus lived, a wise man, if anyone could really call him a man. For he did many deeds that were out of the ordinary and was an instructor of those who accept the truth. Many of the Jews and Greeks put their trust in him. He being the Messiah. When our chief leaders accused him, Pilate condemned him to the cross, but his original disciples continued to follow him; for he had appeared before them on the third day alive again, as the prophets of God had spoken of these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, who had been named after him, remains to this present day."   
         A later Arabic manuscript written by a tenth-century Melkite historian named Agapius also quotes from the same passage of Josephus as follows:   
         "During this time there was a wise man named Jesus, and his actions were good, and he was known to be holy. Many people among the Jews and from other nations became his followers. He was condemned to be crucified and to die by the order of Pilate. But those who had become his disciples did not stray from his teaching. They proclaimed that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was restored to life. Thus, he may have been the Christ of whom wondrous things have been spoken of through the prophets. And the Christians, who were known by his name, have remained to this very day."   
         These statements confirm the following Christian truths found in the bible:    
                          
   1) Jesus was the Messiah spoken of by the prophets.     
       
   2) He performed miracles.   
                       
   3) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.    
   
       4) He arose from the dead three days later and appeared to his disciples.   
   
   

More on Flavius Josephus:
http://josephus.yorku.ca/links-texts.htm
http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/J_Sievers_ppr.pdf

Is this accaptable as historical evidence or do you believe it to be flawed. Please explain.

Regards Mustardseed