Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Is Jesus Azizus Monobaz?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 96039" data-attributes="member: 443"><p>Not even true:</p><p></p><p> </p><p>The Vatican has yet to overtly state that the image is <em>not</em> Christ, but they do acknowledge that any legends concerning the image (the one they have, there are three that claim to be the "original" and several others that don't make that claim) are fiction.</p><p> </p><p>Can you link to the Church confirming what you have said?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Yet historians clearly state that the story, as written, is a fanciful rendition of a possible myth going around at the time:</p><p></p><p>My emphasis. Source for both quotes: <a href="http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/image_of_edessa_revealed/" target="_blank">link.</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It appears you put the cart before the horse on this one, since the story itself, by Josephus (supposedly,) lifts entire phrases from the Gospels, not the other way around.</p><p> </p><p>But I would agree with you that much of the Bible - both parts - is propaganda, and I don't believe the large majority of it myself.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You are basing your beliefs on some guy's video? It would seem that you have no standing, then, to criticize the research techniques of others.</p><p> </p><p>My preference is to read legitimate materials concerning this matter, and not some guy giving an opinion on it in a video. I can form my own opinion, you see, and I will certainly do so, when (if ever) given info on what materials led Ellis to this conclusion.</p><p>A partial preview of one of his books is available on googlebooks: <a href="https://www.google.com/search?num=20&site=&source=hp&q=luke+7%3A34&oq=luke+7%3A34&gs_l=hp.3...1462.5231.0.5467.10.9.0.1.1.0.164.1181.0j9.9.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.hp..3.7.881.0.F5xCkQxIkKc" target="_blank">LINK</a>.</p><p> </p><p>in that preview, I spotted an excerpt concerning the "fullness" of Jesus' facial imagery where Ellis states:</p><p></p><p>Page 398, "Jesus, King of Edessa: The biblical Jesus discovered in the historical record," Ralph Ellis.</p><p> </p><p>The page itself is not viewable (not part of the preview,) but the statements I quote turn up in a search of the text.</p><p> </p><p>Let's look at Luke 7:34 -</p><p></p><p>First point, I defy anyone to find anywhere in the NT any other characterization of Jesus as a glutton and drunkard. Yet Ellis clearly states that Jesus was "always described" this way.</p><p> </p><p>Second point - Ellis takes a single line from the NT completely out of context. Let's look at the context:</p><p></p><p>From the above, it is crystal clear that Ellis has purposefully mischaraterized a story told in Luke concerning Luke's version of Jesus' comments about John the Baptist and the extent that unbelievers will go to in order to maintain their (to Him) false worldview.</p><p> </p><p>Ellis: "Jesus was always described in the New Testament as being a drunkard and a glutton"</p><p> </p><p>Jesus (according to Luke): "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!"</p><p> </p><p>What we actually have is Jesus using an ironic mischaracterization of himself to make a point concerning the hypocrisy of the "Pharisees and the Lawyers."</p><p> </p><p>To put it bluntly, it don't look so good for Ellis. I don't know how you think, but I think that if an author has to mischaracterize (to the brink of lying about) a thing in order to make his point, then the point is almost never worth even taking note of.</p><p> </p><p>This constitutes the entirety of any "research" I'm willing to conduct on this matter, unless I'm <u>given</u> more to read. I'll not search it out myself, since it appears from the above to just be another fringey woo claim, much like the "Pharoah's Helicopter" or the "Coso Artifact."</p><p> </p><p>I would say that your adherence to this belief is completely congruent to a Christian's adherence to Christianity. Simple blind faith and nothing more. Obviously, you could prove me wrong, but not by linking to some video.</p><p> </p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 96039, member: 443"] Not even true: The Vatican has yet to overtly state that the image is [I]not[/I] Christ, but they do acknowledge that any legends concerning the image (the one they have, there are three that claim to be the "original" and several others that don't make that claim) are fiction. Can you link to the Church confirming what you have said? Yet historians clearly state that the story, as written, is a fanciful rendition of a possible myth going around at the time: My emphasis. Source for both quotes: [URL='http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/image_of_edessa_revealed/']link.[/URL] It appears you put the cart before the horse on this one, since the story itself, by Josephus (supposedly,) lifts entire phrases from the Gospels, not the other way around. But I would agree with you that much of the Bible - both parts - is propaganda, and I don't believe the large majority of it myself. You are basing your beliefs on some guy's video? It would seem that you have no standing, then, to criticize the research techniques of others. My preference is to read legitimate materials concerning this matter, and not some guy giving an opinion on it in a video. I can form my own opinion, you see, and I will certainly do so, when (if ever) given info on what materials led Ellis to this conclusion. A partial preview of one of his books is available on googlebooks: [URL='https://www.google.com/search?num=20&site=&source=hp&q=luke+7%3A34&oq=luke+7%3A34&gs_l=hp.3...1462.5231.0.5467.10.9.0.1.1.0.164.1181.0j9.9.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.hp..3.7.881.0.F5xCkQxIkKc']LINK[/URL]. in that preview, I spotted an excerpt concerning the "fullness" of Jesus' facial imagery where Ellis states: Page 398, "Jesus, King of Edessa: The biblical Jesus discovered in the historical record," Ralph Ellis. The page itself is not viewable (not part of the preview,) but the statements I quote turn up in a search of the text. Let's look at Luke 7:34 - First point, I defy anyone to find anywhere in the NT any other characterization of Jesus as a glutton and drunkard. Yet Ellis clearly states that Jesus was "always described" this way. Second point - Ellis takes a single line from the NT completely out of context. Let's look at the context: From the above, it is crystal clear that Ellis has purposefully mischaraterized a story told in Luke concerning Luke's version of Jesus' comments about John the Baptist and the extent that unbelievers will go to in order to maintain their (to Him) false worldview. Ellis: "Jesus was always described in the New Testament as being a drunkard and a glutton" Jesus (according to Luke): "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!" What we actually have is Jesus using an ironic mischaracterization of himself to make a point concerning the hypocrisy of the "Pharisees and the Lawyers." To put it bluntly, it don't look so good for Ellis. I don't know how you think, but I think that if an author has to mischaracterize (to the brink of lying about) a thing in order to make his point, then the point is almost never worth even taking note of. This constitutes the entirety of any "research" I'm willing to conduct on this matter, unless I'm [U]given[/U] more to read. I'll not search it out myself, since it appears from the above to just be another fringey woo claim, much like the "Pharoah's Helicopter" or the "Coso Artifact." I would say that your adherence to this belief is completely congruent to a Christian's adherence to Christianity. Simple blind faith and nothing more. Obviously, you could prove me wrong, but not by linking to some video. Harte [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Is Jesus Azizus Monobaz?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top