Here comes the Sunrise disgust: gay marriage fires up ACL
- Share
Sponsors of Channel Seven’s Sunrise — including Jetstar, Accor Hotels, Myer and The Coffee Club — have been deluged by emails of abuse this week after Sunrise unveiled its support for a gay marriage campaign.
The Australian Christian Lobby immediately called on its supporters to write to Sunrise and its sponsors to complain about the show’s involvement in the joint “I Do” campaign with Marie Claire magazine and GetUp!:
“That a TV current affairs show, let alone TV station, should take sides in such a highly contentious issue in the public square is disgraceful. What it says for the respect they have for alternative opinion, even our values, is extremely disappointing and we need to register our disappointment.
“… Also, please consider sending an email to Sunrise’s partners sharing your concerns about the television show. They include Purina, The Coffee Club, Accor Hotels, Myer and Jetstar.”
ACL’s press release included links to the “contact us” section of each company’s website. Here’s a snippet of emails Sunrise sponsors immediately began receiving, many of which were directed specifically to Sunrise:
Others were aimed more at sponsors. “As a partner of Sunrise I thought it important to share my disgust with you over their bias support of the same-sex marriage debate,” read one.
Another wrote: “I will endeavour to select Virgin Blue flights instead of Jestar[sic]/Qantas in the future. I am a frequent flyer card holder along with another 1000 Leighton staff who[sic] I work for, and I will be encouraging other employees to choose alternatives to Jetstar where possible if Jestar [sic] continue to support gay marriage on Sunrise.”
A Jetstar spokesperson told Crikey the company has no plans to alter its sponsorship agreement with Sunrise following the fracas.
Other Sunrise sponsors echoed the sentiments. ”It certainly doesn’t change our opinion [of Sunrise] whatsoever,” Peter Hook, a spokesperson for Accor Hotels, told Crikey. “Every media outlet should feel free to discuss these issues.”
Hook estimated more than a dozen “obviously standardised emails” of complaint had been received, but “last time I heard there was over 30 that had come in just saying ‘we believe that this issue should be spoken on media and we support that fact that you support Sunrise’”.
GetUp! encouraged its activist members to send messages of support to sponsors in response to ACL’s call-to-arms.
Jo Lynch, general manager of corporate affairs at Myer, says the retail giant had been “receiving both complaints and support” about Sunrise’s stance, but Myer is “more than likely” to continue to support the show.
A spokesperson for The Coffee Club notes they are “aware of the issues” and emails have been received but the company didn’t want to be drawn into the debate. “As responsible corporate citizens, The Coffee Club doesn’t discriminate against anyone and wants to offer a warm welcoming relaxed place for everyone,” said the spokesperson.
Although Purina, a pet care brand and subsidiary of Nestle, was noted in the ACL and GetUp! press releases, it isn’t a sponsor of Sunrise. Instead the company is currently running a promotion with Woolworths, which does sponsor the program.
“We’ve received a couple of emails and complaints and some praising us for our stance,” said Fran Hernon, corporate affairs manager for Nestle. ”While we appreciate the sentiments, it’s not actually something we are involved with.” Hernon also notes a lot of the emails being aimed at Purina have been instead sent to Nestle’s headquarters in Switzerland.
More than 33,000 people have signed GetUp!’s “Thank you” card to Sunrise and Marie Claire.
Making complaints about a gay-friendly treatment of the marriage issue to people in the travel industry!! These people are sillier than they look: and that’s saying something.
I have to worry about Crikey’s choice of describing this as “deluged by emails of abuse.”
I’m sure that the term “abuse” would not be used if this was a campaign that Crikey’s editors agreed with (such as protesting against Professor Kuruvilla George’s views). If you’re going to get stuck into the Daily Telegraph for being biased, how about you check out your own stories as well?
Strange that many of the complainants seem to think Sunrise is a ‘current affairs’ show, and that it is unbiased. Have they ever really paid attention to the subject matter broadcast on this show. However, good on 7 for promoting the gay marriage issue, and good on the sponsors for not giving a toss about the complainants.
Incredible how on this one issue, suddenly popular tele is bias!
Ever watched shows like this or “a current affair” etc, talking about dole bludgers, or asylum seekers, or boat people, or those in detention, or the carbone tax, …
and we never hear a word about bias and pushing opinions onto the rest of us, from these ACL people! Only now… suddenly it is bad to have an opinion or make a stand on an issue….
why? because on THIS issue, they disagree with the bias being pushed.
Hmm…
Wait, they’re going to fly Virgin Blue because they don’t support gay marriage? LOL, morons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYnn722AWQA
In ACL-land, companies should make all sponsorship conditional on the program guaranteeing never to express any editorial comment. The mind boggles….
“I’ll never fly Jetstar again because they choose to advertise on a mainstream morning TV show”
Jesus is cool. Pretty his supporters are such a55holes.
@JamesK: Did no one tell you? It isn’t bias if its in accord with what you believe… :^) and again, for those that missed it :^)
The ACL says ‘… such a highly contentious issue in the public square…’
It’s only deemed highly contentious with a minority of Australians, the overwhelming percentage are supportive of gay marriage… or else have no objection to it.
Gee, it’s a good thing there are no gay pilots or cabin crew at Jetstar otherwise the ACL would be forced to travel by land.
Channel 7 is a master of following public sentiment. If it had not decided that the majority were in favour of gay marriage then they would still be sitting on the fence (or perhaps anti?).
ACL would know, Jesus hung around with 12 male deciples most of his life; Jesus not gay? Hmmm! I wonder if ACL is on the right track here?
hang on Bill - I saw the da vinci code and Leonardo reckons Jesus was married to Mary Magdaline…
James K …no matter, that may be true as well. On the other hand, why hang around with 12 men for most of his life? Just wondering?
Maybe if the people who buy into the ignorant self inflating crap of the likes of the ACL all stopped watching Sunrise it might evolve into an intelligent program. Maybe.
@Bill - I hang around with male friends and I’m not gay (well pretty sure at least - unless have a repressed orientation yet to reveal itself).
As to Sunrise - who’s decision was it to take a position on same sex marriage? Was there a vote amongst staff or did some management genius decide it would be good for ratings? What if Kochie (for example) is secretly against it but feels bullied into going along with the premise. Just saying…….
Bill Hilliger, leaving aside the issue of the veracity of the Bible, the conventional belief is that Jesus began his mission and selected his key disciples when he was around 30, and was crucified around 33. That is not “hanging around with 12 men for most of his life.”
And from a historical point of view (that is my field), if I was being serious about this discussion, I would add the following:
Jesus actually hung around with a band of men and women (Luke 8:1-2) which was really very unusual for a rabbi on the first century. Most rabbis did only train up men and were only seen with their male disciples. But Jesus seemed to resist that rather sexist tradition and include women in the travelling band. And also in the actual training as seen in Luke 10:38-42 where he defends the right of one woman to be learning from him, along with his male disciples (when another woman, her sister, tried to get her into more domestic roles instead).
The traditional historical view is that Jesus remained single his whole life (which was cut short rather early, as one other person has noted above). There are some traditions that have tried to tell us he was married (the Mormons for one, who say he had more than one wife) and there are some who say he was the gay lover of John the Apostle, (modern pro-gay theologicans), but such views have been almost universally deemed to be groups reading into the text that which they want to find (rather then letting the text speak for itself - mind you, that is a problem everyone has to face).
The reality is that some people in history have simply chosen not to be all that interested in either marriage or sex. It shocks those of us who do enjoy either or both those things, (and we do tend to read our experiences into what other people must actually believe and do) - but such is the reality: some are not focused on those things, and manage to live their lives consistently to different principles (eg Mother Theresa, in our lifetime).
Corporate travel is bought on the basis of some lowly employee being offended by a story on a program ‘sponsored’ by a company? Who knew? I guess stranger things happen.
@ Holden: sounds like they’re right down the bottom of the pile too - they “work for” “another 1000 Leighton staff”. Highly unusual someone that far down the ladder would have such pull, but I guess it could happen, right?
@Littlemaths Perhaps it’s a tribute to the imagined power of prayer. But it’s a pretty mysterious way to work, your wonders to perform, even for the Lord.
I wonder how many people there are in the “complaints” (sorry, customer service) departments of all major corporations, who field more of this sort of thing (on a daily basis) than you or I have had hot dinners. I hope they are all happy, and writing novels based on their experiences.
The truly amusing thing about these cut and paste email campaigns is that every spam filter on the planet is designed to block large numbers of emails containing the same text.
If hundreds send an almost identical email to a single address the recipient will probably only get the first one or two.
James K if you were really being serious about a historical discussion you probably also need to preface your remarks with:
The person known as Jesus probably never actually existed as there have never been any first hand reports of his existence but if he existed and the stories told about him by the Church had any basis in reality….
Even the authors of the churches “Gospels” don’t actually claim to have met Jesus.
Mark clearly states he never did and that he just collected all the early stories of the Church into a book.
Matthew clearly was a rewrite of Mark as it includes all 666 verses of Mark and just has a lot of added miracles and magic tricks plus better grammar and spelling.
Luke is a rewrite of Matthew and John written over 100 years after Jesus’ “death” with corrections to the canon.
So that leaves John which the author claims to be a record of the teachings of Peter who the author claims told all the stories about Jesus.
Funnily enough, the gospel of Peter - the only supposed first hand account of someone meeting Jesus and purportedly actually being Jesus brother - was removed from the Church Canon around 300AD as it was considered likely to be a fake.
So at best Christianity was the teachings of a guy that said “You should do what I say because its what my brother with magic powers that no-one else has ever claimed to have met told me to do.”
@DB: However, the getup campaign suggests that you write your own, based on some ideas. WHat the ACL does I don’t know. Not on their mailing list. :%
If I were Jetstar, I’d be writing back to these nutters offering a “Clean Seat” sale. Offer them seats at the back of the aircraft (the bulkhead seats) guaranteeing them to be clean - that is un-sat in by menstruating women at a surcharge of $50.
The idea that anyone should make public policy on the basis of the Bible is ludicrous. The idea that some nutters should be able to choose some random god and expect to impose their beliefs on others’ lives is highly offensive and plain wrong.
Really ? Is this what the ACL folks want to do with their short lives ? Really ?
I think you will find the mad monks & the poodles paw prints all over this, more from muck bucket incorporated.
I have a theory that if Jesus threw a party neither the ACL or the Sunrise team would be on the guest list.
The ACL is like the rich man who parades his large donation before putting it in the poor box. Christian in name only. Jesus Christ, if you are of christian faith, allied himself with the prostitutes and outcasts that so called puritans love to attack.
Wether you believe or not Christ and christianity is all about acceptance and love not the corrupted excuse for a few to impose control and influence on others lives.
Christ didn’t demand obedience but offered a different path. Those that chose to not follow that path were free to do so.
Now not everyone is religious and marriage is not the sole domain of Christianity. If you don’t want to marry same sex then don’t It gives you no right to demand others don’t.
@ Holden: “I wonder how many people there are in the “complaints” (sorry, customer service) departments of all major corporations, who field more of this sort of thing (on a daily basis) than you or I have had hot dinners.”
Funny you should say that…
I love Bill’s Hilliger suggestion that all Apostles were poofs.
I must admit that the whole circus of teasing everybody in the community with the ‘gay rights’, or lack of them, is fascinating! Particularly during nearly every single election campaign we have no other subjects to discuss but abortion, condoms and gay marriage. Afterall, we live in the Phallic Age.
I feel being left out and discriminated against my marital status. I love my neighbour and I would love to marry him. And, there is this handsome first cousin of mine. But I cannot marry them because I am already married. Can we change the law so I can have two/three husbands?? And my husband would be happy to have several wives; we would not have to worry about baby sitting, and sharing chores.
Honestly, our laws are so unjust; time to change them all and live happily ever after.
i love my cat, should we change the laws so i can marry her? oh and my cat loves her litterbox, so i guess we need to change the laws that i can marry that as well, or at least change the laws so my cat can marry her litter box. i also love waking up on a sunday morning, i demand changing the laws so i can marry sunday mornings. but hang on, the rest of the world does sunday mornings to, so i guess we need to change the laws so i can marry the rest of the worlds 7 1/2 billion people as well. but then i’d have to marry suzan blake, ewwwwww………..
so why not just change the law to allow same sex marriage and leave it at that, eh?
Steven Warren …. mate…. from a historical point of view, pretty well everything you said is wrong, or highly disputed.
For a start, of course Jesus lived and said stuff and then got executed. The Roman Historian Tacitus (not a Christian - he thought they were idiots) records Jesus’ execution under governor Pilate. he records it in his Annals when talking about Nero and his exectuion of Christians after the great fire of Rome.
Also, the jewish hsitorian Josephus, (not a Christian) records the historical reality of the man in two places in his writings (one of those two places has been tampered with over the centuries by Christian copyists we believe, making it more ‘divine’ than it would have been, but no question marks re the 2nd reference since it indicates a cynical view of his divine credentials).
The gospel writers and other gospels (non canonical ones) testify to his historical reality. You cant just dismiss all early Christian writings because of bias - they were Christians so they are lying. That would be like saying we cant believe any history of the labor party if it is written by a labor member! You have to investigate the integrity of each writer and ask if they might be reliable or not. It is not as simple as you might be suggesting.
After all that, it is worth saying that what you do with Jesus’ alleged claims of divinity is one thing: but to deny he lived, is just …. not honest hsitorical research.
Other problems with your summary above:
- 2 of the 4 gospels were probably written by members of the disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John). You are right in that 2 of them were not - though Mark was a resident of Jerusalem and probably had seen Jesus, before deciding to follow him. Luke was not. He never met him (being from Greece and converted during the time of Paul’s wanderings later). Of course there will be debate about how we can be sure if the alleged claims of the gospel writers are true or not. But from a historical point of view, one has to read the earliest material about how the gospels came together, and so we read the reflections of the early church historian Eusebius, for example, or the writings of Jerome a bit later, and we use what evidence we have. Eusibius would call a spade a spade. If there were doubts about authorship of documents he mentioned them. He used other sources that he quotes but which have disappeared over time, (and our only knowledge of them is because he cites them). It all adds to the likelihood that two of the 12 wrote Matthew and John, and the other two were from others outside the 12.
- You mistake Mark for Luke. It is Luke who never knew Jesus and whose introduction admits that. But Luke’s introduction also says that Luke had studied the life of Christ carefully, talking to first hand witnesses, gathering true stories, so that his reader will know he is reading a real account of what happened. It is a rather fascinating introduction that actually adds some credibility to his gospel account.
- You say Mark wrote first and Matthew copied it and made it longer. Maybe. It is a commonly accepted view today. But some of the early church writers including Augustine said Matthew wrote first and Mark reduced it. Both theories would account for the word for word similarities. (No one denies those word for word copied moments, by the way. Plagarism was not a sin in those days.)
- Luke probably then used both Matthew and Mark and other sources, which he admits to generally in his introduction. (You said John did that… you were mixing Luke with John).
- John was in all likelihood the last gospel written and quite late. Not Luke.
- Mark is the gospel that is the teaching of Peter (you said John was). Early church historians suggest a connection between Mark and Peter.
- and Peter was not the brother of Jesus. James and Jude were.
Did you say what you said as tongue in cheek? It is so inaccurate that I wondered if you were being light hearted about it all.
At the end of the day: historical existence is not easily ignored - and it does not have to intimidate anyone. What you do or dont do with his religious claims is entirely up to you. But lets not pretend he never lived. I speak here as a historian, not a journalist, not a religious zealot, and not an atheist. We have to be honest with ancient testimony just as we attempt to be when discussing anyone from the ancient world.
Keeping a level playing field.
Historically, Jesus ( Hebrew Yeshua ) is mentioned by the much respected
J-s Historian Josephus in the Wars of the J-s, he is mentioned in the Koran, the Torah, the Talmud, Apochryphal documents and there is even a Roman record to name just a few.
In certain Rabbinical circles he is known as the Living Torah for his life being a midrashim of the full meaning and expression of the Torah. This drawing nuance and understanding between the Letter of the Law that kills and the Spirit of the Law that gives Life.
The apostle Paul, as with most of them, came from Orthodox J-s back-grounds and were steeped in the Torah/ Law. Paul for example, sat at the feet of Gamliel, the grandson of Hillel, one of the most respected Torah scholars of the times.
But never, ever, has there been historical inference that he or his followers aspired to indifferent relationships. It’s just not there…and to suggest so is just plain fraudulent.
The myth that Jesus married Mary Magdalena was created by the Sabbatean Frankists ( a J-s sect ) who intend to fool the world with a counterfeit false messiah and proclaim their man a descendant from the union of Mary Magdalena and Jesus as the promised Christ….it’s a myth with not a sceric of historical evidence to support it. Most christians will get caught in this Sabbatean net and fall for their fasle messiah.
If anything, Jesus was asexual, but to even suggest anything else is that bridge too far.
@Rena
The idea that a man can only have one wife is actually fairly superficial. Where does it come from and why? If you are religious and your religion prevents it, stop reading now. I don’t care about that. Australia wasn’t founded on religion.
In Africa, there are tribes where men are meant to have more than one wife. Australian aborigines are the same. The Mormons, however backwards you think they may be, have more than one wife. If so many people do it, how is it wrong? Why are they backwards? You might say Aborigines and African tribes have a primitive way of living but you’d be close minded to end it there. Many “primitive” cultures around the world have shown us a thing or two. The fire stick farming of the Aborigines is a trick we still marvel today and it taught us a lot. So why shun polygamy?
If you don’t want more than one spouse, just get the one.
Don’t make me do the same for gay marriage.
Just, if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married.
I would support WILLIAM GIBBONS marrying his cat.
DaleyChris - I think Rena was musing about polyandry for herself and polygyny for her bloke.
POLYGAMY, to which you’ve referred, simply means “many spouses”, any combination thereof, gender neutral.
If anyone has a polygamous model for consideration by the parliament, by all means let’s look at it.
Until then we’re boxing at shadows.
The point is that whatever may be wrong with polygamy, whatever its problems - if they applied to same sex marriage then you could bring them up directly against same sex marriage.
It’s a classic bait and switch. Polygamy is bad for some unspecified reasons, and it’s like gay marriage because it’s a change, and therefore what’s bad about polygamy can be attached to gay marriage even though it clearly can’t because if it could you wouldn’t need to raise polygamy at all.
Question for anyone who brings up polygamy: what’s wrong with it? What’s your problem with it?
They won’t specify, because as soon as they do it’ll be clear that those reasons don’t apply to gay marriage and would be a reason to approve one and not the other.
I suspect polygamy won’t happen because (a) in every model we’ve seen it leads to the oppression of women and (b) it’s legislatively hideously complex - how do you regulate when some people want to join a polygamous union and some members don’t? How do you regulate property and divorce when someone leaves some people but not others? As soon as there’s more than 2 people consent becomes a real problem.
Marriage equality advocates aren’t calling for a free-for-all. They’re calling for the removal of discrimination where there’s no, or a completely insubstantial, argument for its retention.
Well well well James K, I’ll be…
I thought it best that Mr Warren’s account not be dignified with a reply ( not that he or anyone else is not entitled to an opinion )…but your rebuttle is one of the finest, all things being considered.
Thanks Theo.
There are a few of us history freaks that drop our two cents worth in from time to time.
Daley Chris - total crackup, loved it.
Did you see that serial show a few years ago on SBS?..can’t think of the name of it, but it was about group of people who broke away from the Mormons but they still wanted to keep the polygamist aspects of that religion. It just came to me…” Big Love ” I think it was called, what a hoot…Woof! Come On Carlton
James K, before appealing to authority to try and win arguments, you should probably check the veracity of the authority you are calling on.
Tacitus was born in 56AD. So over 20 years after Jesus supposed death. His work on the Annals (the book he mentions Jesus’s existence and execution in) wasn’t completed at the time of his death in 117AD. While he claims that Pontious Pilate had Jesus executed he refers to no other document regarding this, no time of execution, not even a location.
This is not a primary document. It’s a second hand account based on non-referenced hearsay.
Oh wait. There isn’t actually even an original copy of the Annals in existence. There are two copies of all of Tacitus’ works and the second Medicean manuscript (where the Annals are apparently replicated) was copied in the 11th century by monks in Benedictine monastary in Monte Cassino.
So the document that you are claiming wasn’t written by a Christian was actually rewritten by Christians a millenia after the original document was written but they claim they copied a non-Christian’s book exactly without making any changes to what was written in the original document all Christians use as proof Jesus did actually exist.
No actually records from the Roman Empire actually made in or around the time of Jesus death mention him at all.
Josephus. Born 37AD (Oh dear), wrote his Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94AD.
When did Jesus allegedly die? Oh that’s right before Josephus was even born. So where did he get his historical facts from? Asking early Christians.
That’s before we even go into the fact as (you mentioned) that many of his manuscripts have been doctored by Christians after the fact.
His account was only ever second hand.
Originally the Church did claim that John and Matthew were written by Jesus disciples of the same name.
Given that Matthew contains all 666 of the original verses of Mark (the verses after the first 666 have a different writing style so it’s unlikely they were written by the same author) it’s now fairly commonly accepted that Matthew was not written by Jesus disciple.
John was also claimed to be written by Jesus disciple John, but this is extremely unlikely. There are still a few die-hards who claim this but it’s fairly commonly accepted that the book was written by a Johannine community that traced their origins to John.
John was written near the end of the century and the Church has claimed it was written at the end of John’s life but this raises the question…. which John?
There are many prominent John’s in the early church. The Church claims John the Apostle wrote the gospel and all his epistles but it looks likely that members of the Johannine community wrote at least some of them and then there was Revelation.
But there was also John the Presbyter who likely wrote some of these. Not to mention John Mark one of the 70 disciples who is another possible author.
Even amongst historians there is no agreement about John. No-one knows who the author was, the copies of the document purported to be the original document have been challenged as forgeries and they can’t even agree what faction of the early church actually wrote it. It’s quite possible it was written by a heretical faction of the early church.
As I said there are no primary documents written by people claiming to have actually met Jesus. It’s all second hand hearsay and in the cases of the gospels, often written by committee.
lol moderated again.
Tacitus and Josephus were both born after Jesus alleged death. If that’s your example of first hand knowledge, I’ll rest my case there.
@steve warren. I was born well after Gandhi died. Pretty sure he did exist however.
If the majority of learned scholars believe that the writing of both are authentic then you’d be misguided (or willfully blind) to suggest otherwise.
The difference is you are able to find find multiple first hand references to Ghandi having existed made by many different people, including but not limited to: newspapers, books, radio and television interviews. Fairly strong proof he actually existed.
Tacitus is actually discussing the persecution of the Christians by Nero and says that they are followers of Jesus who was executed by Pontius Pilate.
But that book wasn’t finished so contains no actual references to where he came by this information and the only copy of it was written by a single christian monastery. Without the references it is hearsay.
I’ve actually written two much larger responses detailing the various problems with their works. They are in moderation atm.
Steve Warren - you can not possibly hold that kind of rigor to ancient history. Did Buddha ever live? Prove it by your narrow definition of demanding primary sources that relate to the date of his life. Of course your cant. But did he live? Yes of course he did. But when do we have written confirmation of that? Centruies after he lived!
Did Julius Caesar ever live? Prove it with the same degree of rigor that you want for Jesus.
Did Alexander the Great ever live? Prove it. probably just made up by Greek patriots…
Your selective criteria for Jesus reflects more about you, than about your capacity to study ancient history.
As far as your theories about the gospels go, they are just that. If my views are theories, so too are yours. You just listen to some theologicans who were prominent between the late 1800’s and the mid 1900’s ,… that is your option. But others have argued that there theories are full of holes too, (and you probably know that).
in the end we accept ancient materials - we put them through rigorous tests internal and external - and we seek to find what is likely to be accurate and what is likely to be added.
You seem to miss the point. You dont have to deny Jesus lived to reject his religious claims (or those made by his followers). You do damage to all ancient history to play the game you are playing.
Has anyone told andrew bolt? Because he gets really het up about people bullying businesses, or going after advertisers as a way to suppress free speech. He’ll get really angry about a thing like this. And he really likes to stand up for the rights of gay people, too.
[No actually records from the Roman Empire actually made in or around the time of Jesus death mention him at all.] Steve Warren
Your motives are coming into question here, mate.
What do you do with the works of the Roman Historians like Seutonias, Thallus and Pliny? They all mention him. And Tacitus, whom you denigrate, is regarded as the greatest of Roman Historians.
The ancient church fathers had their issues, but historically they were some of the most honest scribes who ever walked the earth and their record of account is beyond repute… they paid dearly for their honesty, with their lives.
Now that brings me to the issue of your sources. Can you come up with anything other than cut and pasted Wikipedia?
Att: Mr Steven warren
Jesus is even mentioned in the Sanskrit Vedic Texts known as the Vedas.
Prajapatir vai idam asit: In the beginning was Brahman. Tasya vag dvitya asit; with whom was the Vak or the Word… Vag vai paramam Brahma; and the word is Brahman”
Same ship different ocean.
Thanks for that Theo, I was n’t specifically aware of that but I have studied the Tibetan writings known as the St Issa scrolls. He was known as Issa the same terminology seen in the Koran.
There is a translation by Nichollas Novotich which is very interesting.
I rejected this for years out of ignorance, I guess, but there is no record of Jesus in the New testament Gospel accounts between his age of about 12 up until 30 years of age, when he suddenly appears on the banks of the Jordan River…a huge gap.
The New Age industry were onto this and exploited it with their own version that he was taught by the Masters of Wisdom in Tibet, but thanks to the Novotich’s translation it appears that little Issa actually was the one doing the teaching.
Stands to reason really, Buddhism for example, is really what Judaism used to be at the level of Ha Sod Torah and New Age is really just Old Age…sigh!..we have all been deceived.
In my first reply which the moderator has now deleted completely, I actually said I was being a little facetious with my first post as there is enough hearsay evidence that most people would conclude that Jesus did exist.
But your claims I need to provide proof he didn’t exist are highly amusing as it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the concept of burden of proof.
But I’m hardly the first person to call the veracity of the “evidence” of both Tacitus or Josephus into question. With Tacitus most of what I’ve read shows that most scholars don’t doubt the authenticity of the Annals but doubt his references for his statement. With Josephus it’s the opposite
For references try reading The Evidence For Jesus or
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#tacitus