h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm doing a little bit of reading-the Second Messiah is the name of it, I'll have to get the author for you later.

In any case it made some interesting claims

1)Saul changed his name to Paul because he wanted to be a roman citizen and Paul was the closest to his birth name.

2)Saul never knew Jesus and was considered to be a Gentile by those that did know Jesus. The sect of Judaism that he (Saul) was a part of were known as the Diaspora Jews (Greco-Roman).

3)Paul was not the head of the church as has been asserted by the Papacy. James, the brother of Jesus was. All churches fell under his leadership until his murder. In fact, the church that James headed was taken up by a nephew of Jesus until he to was murdered, in the same fashion as James, he was stoned to death. Befitting that a monarchy with a heritary Kingship should follow as they were of the line of David.

4)Guess what was the part that the Diaspora Jews (Greco-Roman Jews) and the Jerusalem Church fought over?

The divinity of Jesus.

5)In fact the so called *doubting Thomas* is said to have been Jesus's twin brother. He founded a Church in Syria that sent its message out to as far east as India. Turns out that the Indian churches practiced Judaism that Thomas taught, which included the part about Jesus not being a son of God but rather the Priest that was foretold to the jews, right up until the time the Portugese showed up. They of course burned all of the heretical writings, and teachings. To this day however, they still claim that their founder was Thomas.

6)Jesus was the priest foretold in the Bible. John the Baptist the prophet, and James was to be the king.

7)Jesus took the role of both King and Priest, and so died with the epitaph 'King of the Jews'.

8)The reason the Jerusalem Church's version of it all died out and the Diaspora version lived has to do with the ensuing 60 some odd years that are not in the bible. During this time the political unrest between Israel and Rome came to a boiling point. A historical account (who I've not had a chance to cross reference yet) written by a then jewish soldier who defected to the side of Rome wrote about those years. Turns out that the Jews were attacked again and again in a war that lasted for several years until eventually the Holy of Holies was breached by Roman soldiers and the priests had died to the last man expected God to intervene and protect his house of worship. In fact one of the cities (I think its name was Mossada, can't remember and don't have the book in front of me) held out for 2 more years after the fall of Jerusalem, and then committed mass suicide rather than be caught. After all was said and done, no one was left to dispute Paul.

Interesting hmmmm.....

That is interesting!
It is amazing how much you just don't hear about. There is so much they don't tell you! Even of what they do, you don't know whats true and what is just cover ups and lies, and of what is true most of it is just theorys anyway! Ahhh! I love history so much, but it seems the only way to learn the truth is to go back in time! Maybe some day they will make everything, like what you just said, available to us and no longer present it as fact, but as what it is. Speculation.

Now that is wierd, I've never used the big eyes smiley before, I'm positive I didn't use it this time.

What is going on here?

That would be a bit random...

Very interesting, Perium .. I thought the whole point about Paul being a Roman citizen is that he definitely was one! I had heard of Thomas going to India, but didn't know he was (said to be) a twin brother of Jesus...The fortress was Masada, and that and the fact that they held out for yonks, is all I know.

This particular book was making the claim that he was a jew who was not born in Israel, but had jewish parents nonetheless. Upon application for citizenship he changed his name to appear 'normal' in the eyes of the Romans.

You seem to have quite an understanding of the history here, Perium

I have a question. What do you think was the relevance re: what you have just said of Constantine the Great making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? I've always felt that the Romans didn't become Christians but the Christians were made into Romans, hence why Christianity ceased to be the religion of the poor and dispossessed and stopped being a force for good (if you call it that)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but it seems to me that you want to know what I think about the Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Empire, and further, did the Romans convert en-masse, or were they somehow shaped into Christians?

Is that correct?

Yeah, pretty much.

Was Constantine a genuine Christian or a shrewd politician? Constantine reformed the empire, including the creation of a new capitol at Byzantium (Constantinople). Some say he felt that the fragmented empire needed to become one "people" and religion was the answer to that.

I tend to think, Zagreb, that Constantine was merely a politician. After all, after his (alleged) conversion, he drowned his son (supposedly for plotting against him) and drowned/suffocated the particular wife who was the mother of that son.. Dastardly unchristian but very Roman-emperor-y behaviour! (This does not preclude his having a *genuine* re-conversion b4 death.. we cannot be the judges, that's important to know. I cannot, we cannot presume to assess someone else's standing in their *or* our religion!
Many say that the officialisation of Christianity under Constantine was the beginning of the ruination of it.. realistically, it couldn't have coped much longer under persecution, but.

I'll have to agree with Della on this one. Superb statesman.

One of the reasons for this is that Constantine became the Emperor in 324. Immediately after, in 325,he convened the Council of Nicea. It seems to me that he had very specific goals for the church and the bishops were behind him. Some of the first canons of that meeting defined the heirarchy of the church and the importance of Jerusalem. For a church that had already had a great deal of infighting in its short history, to have the backing of the government for the first time and the structure defined out so clearly, it isn't hard to see the benefits for the church. But for Constantine........

The church had been persecuted up to that time. Constantine changed all that with his Council at Nicea. But one of the things to remember is that even though the church had been persecuted for more than 300 yrs, they had flourished rather than floundered. The romans have a history of being very very ruthless and willing to go to ANY lengths to achieve their goals. For me it isn't very hard to imagine a potential emperor taking a hard look at wether or not to continue fighting this power or to consilidate and tie it to his own. It's a no-brainer really. But I tend to think that he himself used the religion to suit his own goals, rather than being a true believer.

But I want to make the point that the church was already corrupt from the get-go here if I may. According to my research the bishops of the christian church persecuted some of their own. There was a man by the name of Valentinus that had a fair size following in Egypt. He was a potential for the Papacy, but being as he had some beliefs that the other bishops didn't agree too, he was eventually murdered and martyred while his following went underground. Thus started the deep rooted hatred of the Gnostics.

However, the most interesting part about this is that Valentinus claimed to have been taught all he knew about Jesus and the faith from a man who was one of Pauls disciples. Being as it may, I found it odd, and worth further research as to why the bishops came down on Valentinus so hard when they 'should' of had the same fundamental beliefs. Unless of course they edited what they didn't like of Paul's teachings as well.

All in all I just find it very strange how quick the church reacted to Valentinus, and how quick the Council of Nicea convened after Constantine came to power. There are some very deep power plays involved since the begining of the church I think, and some questions that need some answering.

That's exactly it, Power Plays! That's why the legitimisation of the Christian church was a mixed blessing (to say the least) for Christianity.Here we are 1800 years later or thereabouts, and we can't be sure what's true any more than we can be 100% about the degree of truth in present world and war news!

The problem with history at that age is the lack of differing stand points from which it is written. The only secure judgement upon a point in history is when accounts from opposing viewpoints agree on a "fact". Then it is reasonable to say that the "fact" is most likely a FACT.

Or, you could say, history is written by the winners! Talking of the past, we need a "time viewer". I've been reading about UFOs and such like, and the insistence of people like Habgood and von Daniken that there were ancient astronauts and/or a flourishing civilisation 12,000 years back... Varying viewpoints indeed!

I read a book that suggested that ther are no such thing as ghosts. (stay with me history comes in). It points to famous hauntings and quotes accounts. By the behavoius of the apparitions and the repedative nature...

What people are actually seeing is a weakpoint or hole in space/time. "Viewing history"

Interesting point! Or... there's the recording theory - that a wet (or damp) environment acts as a recorder of emotion-laden events, which is supposedly why England is the most haunted place on Ghosts are therefore not self-aware, they don't respond, because "they" are not really there at all! Have you heard about the Roman soldiers in the cellar of the Council bldg somewhere in the UK? Details in bks by Colin Wilson and Ian Wilson (no relation - to each other..)

Thats interesting about moisture. I haven't heard about the roman haunting but I did watch a programme recently hosted by Johnathan Frakes.

I was about haunings caught on film. There were only two the weren't proved fake. One infolved fog and the other mist.

You have to be careful with "evidence" of ancient UFO activity. It is easy to take the words of some 9th century serf seeing a shooting star and turn it into a flying saucer. The text is usually so vague. van Wotsisname is pretty notorious for grabbing hold of anything and winding it into his "single civilisation" (as far as I know, he doesn't mention UFOs) theory without subjecting it to proper scrutiny.

"It is easy to take the words of some 9th century serf seeing a shooting star and turn it into a flying saucer. The text is usually so vague."

Zagreb, I am wise to the absurd ways of von Wossname,luckily... Others as well... I have read a lot about s lately, and it has left me more unconvinced than ever. Which is why it's interesting that von Wossname has his witty and clever moments, one of which I copied into my quotations book!

I tried to post this b4, but I am being interfered with, and I forgot.

About 1993, a friend of mine saw an over the autobahn in Germany, he said it was about 2 metres above his car. (I am reminded that he said on different occasions, that it was between 2 and 20 metres. His story fluctuated.) Nevertheless, he did see it, or he wouldn't have droned and bored on about it so much.