Jesus is a Myth

[Mythra]

When I began to get free from christianity, I began to study. I was sure that Jesus was not the same Jesus as portrayed in the bible. I figured that he was a teacher who had followers, who was later developed into the godman though the imaginations of others who followed soon after him.

 

As I started to look at the evidence, I very quickly came to the conclusion that this was wrong. There is an absolutely overwhelming number of things that point to the fact that Jesus never existed as a man. So this what I want to discuss in this thread. Jesus never was a man. He was a concept, a theology if you will, based on Paganism that came to Israel through Gnosticism.

 

If you think this isn't right, then lets talk about it. Present your case. I'm hoping Lokmer and AUB will weigh in. (actually, this is a poorly veiled attempt to learn from them.)

 

Here is a really good article written by a Jewish scholar that is really comprehensive. Not a quick read, but worthwhile for anyone seeking the truth.

Myth_of_the_Historical_Veracity_of_Jesus.htm

[Guest Scorpio]

I have nothing to add, but anxiously await the responses.

[Saviourmachine]

Mmm, what filetype does this attachment have? Okay it's overhere: Myth of the Hystorical Veracity of Jesus. There are so many different opinions about the personality Jesus derived from other sources. How can it be, that he does have so many origins. We've to be critical isn't it? Not just accept a theory because it invalidates the idea that Jesus was a historical person.

 

Where can I find more about the Notzrim? Are there English editions of the Tosefta and the Baraitas online? What were the Hashmonean times? What is known about the Hashmons? (I found something overhere). What's the Gemara?

 

Do you really think things like this can happen (from source)?

The idea that the character of Mary Magdalene is also derived from Miriam the mythical mother of Yeishu, is corroborated by the fact that the strange name "Magdalene" clearly resembles the Aramaic term "mgadla nshaya," meaning "womens' hairdresser." As mentioned before, there was a belief that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's hairdresser." Because the Christians did not know what the name "Magdalene" meant, they later conjectured that it meant that she had come from a place called Magdala on the west of Lake Kinneret. The idea of the two Marys fitted in well with the pagan way of thinking. The image of Jesus being followed by the two Marys is strongly reminiscent of Dionysus being followed by Demeter and Persephone.

I mean. How is it possible to use that amount of material without being writing down a myth purposely? This has to be done consciously. But who did it? Was it paid? Is it not a bit too much like a conspiracy theory?

However, suspicious it is, that xians did destroy the Talmud references concerning Yeishu and ben Stada.

 

It's a good piece of text. Thanks!

[pandora]

Admittedly, I have not done a whole lot of reading on the historical evidence for Jesus, and my religion professors are not Christians but do believe he existed, like the author of that article used to teach. Obviously my opinions are influenced by the bias of my teachers. I reject the doctrines of Christiantiy, but for some reason I am not ready to dismiss a whole religion as a consipiracy theory. It provides meaning for people, dubious meaning, but meaning nonetheless.

 

Although I do think there were a lot of these in Christian history:

[Mythra]

Admittedly, I have not done a whole lot of reading on the historical evidence for Jesus, and my religion professors are not Christians but do believe he existed, like the author of that article used to teach.  Obviously my opinions are influenced by the bias of my teachers. I reject the doctrines of Christiantiy, but for some reason I am not ready to dismiss a whole religion as a consipiracy theory. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Once you start looking into it, it doesn't come out like a "conspiracy". The gnostic "christ" just preceded the historical version. There is evidence that the Gnostics were in existence by 100 BCE or earlier. One of the early gnostic sages was named Dositheus , around 100 BCE. Orthodox christianity teaches that Gnostics broke off from them. It really looks like it was the other way around. If gnosticism predates when Jesus is supposed to have lived, how could it be an offshoot of christianity? And what did the early gnostics believe?

 

Don't you find 400 year silence between Malachi (last of the OT) and Romans or Corinthians (the first of the NT to be written) kind of odd?

 

The NT did not develop in a vacuum.

 

Actually, there's quite a lot of intertestament writings. They're just not very well known. They're now considered part of the OT apocryphya, I believe.

 

Just what went on for those 400 years? How did Babylonian, Persian, and Greek thought infiltrate jewish thought during those years?

[Ouroboros]

Once you start looking into it, it doesn't come out like a "conspiracy".  The gnostic "christ" just preceded the historical version. There is evidence that the Gnostics were in existence by 100 BCE or earlier.  One of the early gnostic sages was named Dositheus , around 100 BCE.  Orthodox christianity teaches that Gnostics broke off from them.  It really looks like it was the other way around.  If gnosticism predates when Jesus is supposed to have lived, how could it be an offshoot of christianity? And what did the early gnostics believe?

 

That's extremely interesting. Do you have any website with gnostic writing preceding 1 CE?

[Mythra]

I don't Hans. As you know, I'm no expert on any of this, and I don't pretend to be.

 

But I think your question reveals how hard it is to think outside the box. What happened in 1 CE? If Jesus wasn't historical, nothing happened then..

 

Most scholars agree that the first writings in the new testament (and the only genuinely pauline epistles) are Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians , and I Thessalonians.

 

Since it is believed that Paul died around 65 CE, these epistles were in existence before then. It is really important to note in these epistles that there is no mention of Jesus' miracles, virgin birth, or any of Jesus' teachings or sayings, or really anything else about his "earthly" life.

It's not conceivable that Paul would not have included any information about a historical jesus, if it had been known at that time.

 

In Acts 9, we see that Barnabas takes Paul to meet with the disciples in Jerusalem shortly after he had his "conversion" on the road to Damascus. (although Paul's account of this differs in Galatians) If Jesus had existed, why wouldn't Paul have known almost every detail of Jesus' life after being with the disciples in Jerusalem?

 

So, the question becomes, at this point, just what was Paul's concept of this Jesus?

Paul speaks of a spiritual christ who had conquered death. But nothing else that would lead us to believe that the gospel story, as delivered to us, was known at that time.

 

Note to Lokmer and AUB: If I make any inaccurate statements in this thread, please correct me.

[Ouroboros]

My belief for some time now has been that Jesus was only made up. So that is not a problem for me, but I've learned from some of your quotes Mythra some interesting facts. Like when Constantine made it all up etc, love that info. And I have had a suspicion that the Jesus story came from one or some other people earlier than Jesus, so if the Gnostic existed before 1 CE, and there's documents showing that, or at least hinting that, I'd really like to read some of it.

 

Let me know if you find something.

 

Somehow there's a little signal in my head that I've heard about the "Logos" concept existing before 1CE. Was it you who said Logos was part of Mithraism?

[Abiyoyo]

Acts 5:28-29

28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

(KJV)

 

 

 

 

Acts 5:34-42

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

(KJV)

 

 

If Christ isnt real, Why did so many people follow His way even in a time when there were many false messiahs. Followers of Christ today are proof that Christ was not just a myth. There are many different types of Christians. Some grew up in church, and others like me did not, and have had a rough life.

 

How is it then that we have around 6billion people on this earth and still Jesus is being followed over 2000 years after His death. Another way to veiw this is to say that over 2000 years ago, the pharisees even said (paraphrase), "hey, let them do whatever, if its real then we dont want the hand of God upon our heads, and if its not then it will die out, and they will despirse. Reminds me of a license plate I love. It has a image of Jesus, and says" Still saving lives".

 

Really? Doesnt any sect, cult, or religion that is false eventually start to become nothing. Christianity is perceived by many to have been scattered and some even veiw this as to some reason of confusion and falsehood. I disagree.

 

Are not even the smallest and sometimes closest areas so different from 20 minutes futher down the street. We have all the churches we have because America is one of the largest melting pots of cultures in the world. Some would say that some difference in churches are due to different readings and understandings from the Bible. I agree, to that being parts of this diversity.

 

Another thing for the Bible accuracy critics. When was the Book of Acts written? What is the original or today translation of this text? If the original is close to the meaning here then there is an answer. Around two thousand years ago, someone from an ancient document, has said that it.

 

If this is accurate to the original translation, of the manuscripts, then this was written way before any alterations to the context of the Bible, or the wording and translations from the church.

 

In essence, my POV is this. Are the Pharisees mentioned above real people? Are they questioned to there existance, certainly Ceasar is not. If these are real people and the documents in original form are to the same wording and context. Then wouldnt that mean for people today that Jesus is real, and the Son of God. Did his ministry and followers scatter and despirse. Are they still proclaiming anything in the name of Jesus? Are people recieving healing in His name? Are people changing there whole lives to be His follower?

[Ouroboros]

If Christ isnt real, Why did so many people follow His way even in a time when there were many false messiahs. Followers of Christ today are proof that Christ was not just a myth. There are many different types of Christians. Some grew up in church, and others like me did not, and have had a rough life.

That is only vital if Acts is a true historical document, which has been questioned by historians too.

 

How is it then that we have around 6billion people on this earth and still Jesus is being followed over 2000 years after His death. Another way to veiw this is to say that over 2000 years ago, the pharisees even said (paraphrase), "hey, let them do whatever, if its real then we dont want the hand of God upon our heads, and if its not then it will die out, and they will despirse. Reminds me of a license plate I love. It has a image of Jesus, and says" Still saving lives".

That makes Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism and Judaism to be more accurate and true, because they're older.

 

Really? Doesnt any sect, cult, or religion that is false eventually start to become nothing. Christianity is perceived by many to have been scattered and some even veiw this as to some reason of confusion and falsehood. I disagree.

Most cult gets less diversified than Christianity has been and is still. Islam only have two versions, and that's after 1400 years.

 

Are not even the smallest and sometimes closest areas so different from 20 minutes futher down the street. We have all the churches we have because America is one of the largest melting pots of cultures in the world. Some would say that some difference in churches are due to different readings and understandings from the Bible. I agree, to that being parts of this diversity.

True. And yet two Muslim mosques 500 miles apart are more coherent that two Christian Churches 20 feet apart.

 

Another thing for the Bible accuracy critics. When was the Book of Acts written? What is the original or today translation of this text? If the original is close to the meaning here then there is an answer. Around a thousand years ago, someone from an ancient document, has said that it.

That's the problem. Acts has been in question for authenticity.

 

If this is accurate to the original translation, of the manuscripts, then this was written way before any alterations to the context of the Bible, or the wording and translations from the church.

 

In essence, my POV is this. Are the Pharisees mentioned above real people? Are they questioned to there existance, certainly Ceasar is not. If these are real people and the documents in original form are to the same wording and context. Then wouldnt that mean for people today that Jesus is real, and the Son of God. Did his ministry and followers scatter and despirse. Are they still proclaiming anything in the name of Jesus? Are people is recieving healing in His name? Are people changing there whole lives to be His follower?

The followers for the "original Jesus" were destroyed so who knows. The Church didn't want them to hang around and spread truth about the religion, when it was better to keep it as a lie.

[Mythra]

In the beginning was the word.. (logos)

 

Logos, as I understand it, means, God's consciousness of himself. The primal thought. The thought through which all is created. Something like that.

 

It is a greek word and concept, of course. Although I think it goes back to the Egyptians.

 

 

Here is a paragraph about it. From the Jesus Mysteries.

 

Christians personify the relationship between God and the Logos as that between a father and a son. The Logos is the "Son of God." Yet they also teach that the Father and Son are aspects of each other. St. John expresses this paradox: "The Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."

These are actually ancient Pagan doctrines, propounded by sages such as Hermes Trismegistus, who also calls the Logos "the Son of God". He explains that, like mind and thought, the Father and the Son are really One, but when separated from each other they appear as two. Likewise, in the sixth century BCE Heraclitus had written: "The Father and the Son are the same." Clement acknowledges that Euripedes had "divined as in a riddle that the Father and the Son are one God."

 

 

p.s. Euripedes lived from 480 to 406 BCE

 

 

Looks like more "plagiarism by anticipation" to me. That wily ol' serpent.

[Abiyoyo]

That is only vital if Acts is a true historical document, which has been questioned by historians too.

That makes Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism and Judaism to be more accurate and true, because they're older.

Most cult gets less diversified than Christianity has been and is still. Islam only have two versions, and that's after 1400 years.

True. And yet two Muslim mosques 500 miles apart are more coherent that two Christian Churches 20 feet apart.

That's the problem. Acts has been in question for authenticity.

The followers for the "original Jesus" were destroyed so who knows. The Church didn't want them to hang around and spread truth about the religion, when it was better to keep it as a lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Educate me, any member of knowledge on the subject. Was the Book of Acts an actual written document prior to the hands of the latter church became invovled? If its is, How accurate is our current translations to the original documnt?

[syndacit]

If Christ isnt real, Why did so many people follow His way even in a time when there were many false messiahs. Followers of Christ today are proof that Christ was not just a myth. There are many different types of Christians. Some grew up in church, and others like me did not, and have had a rough life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Simulation of that in highschool

 

I tell my friend a lie and make him believe it, which gets him to go tell 2 other people and gets them to believe it.

 

and those 2 tell 4 other people and those 4 tell 8 other people. Now imagine that over hundreds of years. Quiet the mulitplication problem ey?

 

then after say 500 hundred years, some scholars want to write down history.

They'll write it down because

2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x

2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x

etc etc etc etc = x

 

x = vast amount of people

 

just because they said so

[Mythra]

Part of the confusion is in not having complete understanding of things. If all you know is the bible, you have a very incomplete picture. (as do I, still) but -

 

It's not like a bunch of guys sat down at a table and decided to make up a religion.

 

Christianity developed over several hundred years, as sayings, allegories, fables, and wildly varied accounts of Jesus. This is why everything about Jesus has parallels in pagan religions. Jesus is the jewish version of the Osiris/Dionysis saviour / god. Mithras and many other savior/gods fit the mold too. The gnostics made fun of the literalists for believing that Jesus was a real person. So did the greeks.

 

There were over 50 gospel stories of Jesus, all varying widely in their accounts of him, including widely varying accounts of how he died. Some say he went to India or other regions and disappeared. Each account had someone's name attached to it who never really wrote it.

 

The early literalist roman church was manic in its efforts to burn all books and manuscripts and remnants of gnosticism thought and paganism.

 

Much is still revealed in the early roman church father's apologetic writings.

 

Jesus became a real person just as Heracles (Hercules) began as legends and stories and was later believed to be a real person by many. At one time the greeks had a great debate to try and decide Heracles' real birth date.

 

Mithras (Zoroastrianism) started as stories and fables, and developed into what his followers thought had been a real person. He had a story very much like Jesus. We now believe he never existed.

[Mythra]

Yoyo: as I recall, the accounts in the book of Acts were unknown to Justin Martyr, who was one of christianities' founding fathers. There was nothing about them in any of his writings. Justin Martyr lived around 150 CE. The book of Acts first shows up in christian writings around 180 CE. So it is assumed that Acts was written sometime between 150 CE and 175 CE.

[Lokmer]

Mithras (Zoroastrianism) started as stories and fables, and developed into what his followers thought had been a real person.  He had a story very much like Jesus.  We now believe he never existed.

 

Not quite. Mithras is the son of Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism. He was never believed to be a real flesh-and-blood man, but to have been incarnate in the heavenly realm (then thought to be physical) to slay the cosmic bull (the constellation of Taurus) and bring about the procession of the equinoxes. See "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" available at amazon.com for more info.

 

Zarathustra is the progenetor/prophet of Zoroastrianism. Mithraism is a mystery/mystic offshoot of Zarathustra's eternal monotheistic dualism which attempted to bring the Babylonian pantheon under control. It didn't really work, but did succeed in domesticating a lot of the lesser gods into demons and angels (much as Christianity later did). Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah were all (evidently, from the Bible) Zoroastrian priests or at least functionaries in the Zoroastrian religion (the state religion of Babylon in the time of Nebuchednezzar. The returning Jewish upper classes in the time of Ezra brought with them Zoroastrian philosophy, and the Zoroastrian priestly/academic class brought back its name and philosophy (including the idea of resurrection) to Judea. They were called the "Paresees." By the time of the first century church, they were known as "The Pharisees."

 

-Lokmer

[Abiyoyo]

Yoyo:  as I recall, the accounts in the book of Acts were unknown to Justin Martyr, who was one of christianities' founding fathers.  There was nothing about them in any of his writings.  Justin Martyr lived around 150 CE.  The book of Acts first shows up in christian writings around 180 CE.  So it is assumed that Acts was written sometime between 150 CE and 175 CE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The mauscripts of the New Testament were completed around 60ad. The church didnt get involved with the scripture until around 360 ad. The Apochrypha's were also included in some of the first translations of the Bible around 360ad.

 

 

I would like to purchase a true original translation(replica) or reasonable priced original from a latter time that contained the original text. Unfortuniately, I would also have to hire someone to rtanslate. LOL.

 

I guess, thats why I dont look at the text a whole lot, just the context. I told my wife about the differences in Davids cenus of Israel in Kings, and the story told in Chronicles. In Kings, it says that He moved David to number Israel. In Chronicles, it says that satan moved David to number Israel.

 

I came to my own conclusion of the correct context, by the prior situations. God, in the past, ordained the cenus, and they only numbered Israel upon His word to. David, numbered them basically for his own likeness.

[syndacit]

The mauscripts of the  New Testament were completed around 60ad. The church didnt get involved with the scripture until around 360 ad. The Apochrypha's were also included in some of the first translations of the Bible around 360ad.

I would like to purchase a true original translation(replica) or reasonable priced original from a latter time that contained the original text. Unfortuniately, I would also have to hire someone to rtanslate. LOL.

 

I guess, thats why I dont look at the text a whole lot, just the context. I told my wife about the differences in Davids cenus of Israel in Kings, and the story told in Chronicles. In Kings, it says that He moved David to number Israel. In Chronicles, it says that satan moved David to number Israel.

 

I came to my own conclusion of the correct context, by the prior situations. God, in the past, ordained the cenus, and they only numbered Israel upon His word to. David, numbered them basically for his own likeness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

if you would need someone to translate it for you, then wouldn't you miss some context, due to the language not being perfectly translated?

 

but it is good though that you came to your own conclusion, that is some freedom that you have.

 

Though if you take it by context, a lot of the bible has been lost through translation by translation by translation. So what one reads today might not be what was written down Centuries ago. Which was stated above, I believe.

[Abiyoyo]

Not quite.  Mithras is the son of Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.  He was never believed to be a real flesh-and-blood man, but to have been incarnate in the heavenly realm (then thought to be physical) to slay the cosmic bull (the constellation of Taurus) and bring about the procession of the equinoxes.  See "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" available at amazon.com for more info.

 

Zarathustra is the progenetor/prophet of Zoroastrianism.  Mithraism is a mystery/mystic offshoot of Zarathustra's eternal monotheistic dualism which attempted to bring the Babylonian pantheon under control.  It didn't really work, but did succeed in domesticating a lot of the lesser gods into demons and angels (much as Christianity later did).  Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah were all (evidently, from the Bible) Zoroastrian priests or at least functionaries in the Zoroastrian religion (the state religion of Babylon in the time of Nebuchednezzar.  The returning Jewish upper classes in the time of Ezra brought with them Zoroastrian philosophy, and the Zoroastrian priestly/academic class brought back its name and philosophy (including the idea of resurrection) to Judea. They were called the "Paresees."  By the time of the first century church, they were known as "The Pharisees."

 

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey lokmer,

 

That reminded me of when Jesus said that unless one is more upright than the Pharisees, then one wouldnt see the kingdom of Heaven. (paraphrase, alot I think. )

 

Anyhow, thats why I think that people think to much. Some call me stubborn, blind, ignorant, etc..I would ask how much harder is it for one to purposely keep there focus and faith in the Lord, and the teachings we have now rather than the writtings of other men that tell different veiws.

 

There are many other religions, sects, cults, and hypocrites. God in the book I study, has warned me of all those things. My biggest thing is that the Pharisees were not on Jesus's favorite list, and He regularly talked them down for their stubborness, and ignorance.

 

Thats the good news to me. I dont have to be smart and highly thought of by others to believe what I believe. Even, though, when needed and called for, God has given me wisdom about things that normally would go againist my human nature.

[Ouroboros]

The mauscripts of the  New Testament were completed around 60ad. The church didnt get involved with the scripture until around 360 ad. The Apochrypha's were also included in some of the first translations of the Bible around 360ad.

I would like to purchase a true original translation(replica) or reasonable priced original from a latter time that contained the original text. Unfortuniately, I would also have to hire someone to rtanslate. LOL.

 

The Oldest:

The earliest transcript found, from Qumran, the dead sea scrolls are dated to 130 AD, it's called the Rylands Papyrus (P52). And it has only a few passages from the Gospel of John.

 

Acts:

Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

 

 

Apologetic Site:

http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm

 

 

Critics Site:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

[Fweethawt]

CLICK HERE

 

'Nuff said...

[spamandham]

The mauscripts of the  New Testament were completed around 60ad. The church didnt get involved with the scripture until around 360 ad.

 

I would be extremely interested in extant copies of the NT dating to 60 CE if you have them. (as would a few scholars I imagine). You see, the problem is that the current dates are based on extrapolations from mentions of bits and pieces within other extant texts from the relevant time periods. The actual dates for the oldest complete extant texts from the NT date from the 3rd century on.

 

Unfortunately, that leaves a couple of hundred years for errors and revisions even with Paul's writings.

 

By the way, don't you find it odd that neither Jesus nor anyone who personally knew him bothered to write down his witness?

[Ouroboros]

I would be extremely interested in extant copies of the NT dating to 60 CE if you have them.  (as would a few scholars I imagine).  You see, the problem is that the current dates are based on extrapolations from mentions of bits and pieces within other extant texts from the relevant time periods.  The actual dates for the oldest complete extant texts from the NT date from the 3rd century on.

 

Unfortunately, that leaves a couple of hundred years for errors and revisions even with Paul's writings.

 

By the way, don't you find it odd that neither Jesus nor anyone who personally knew him bothered to write down his witness?

 

To play the devils advocate just a tiny bit.

 

If Jesus or someone did write it down, there is always the chance that someone destroyed it. Maybe they did, we just never got to see it...

[Fweethawt]

To play the devils advocate just a tiny bit.

 

If Jesus or someone did write it down, there is always the chance that someone destroyed it. Maybe they did, we just never got to see it...

 

Go click that link I posted up there.

 

That site is extremely engaging especially for this particular topic.

[Ouroboros]

Go click that link I posted up there.

 

That site is extremely engaging especially for this particular topic.

Yup, I did check it out, and I think there is a lot of truth to it.

 

Already with the 12 tribes of Israel, and the 12 disciples of Jesus.

 

 

***

 

I'd like to find the disciples signs, so see which one I am...