Jesus never existed.
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
And which of the two Christian Laws are we damned for?
Accepting a little book is a lot safer (in the search for finding what the Bible covers)than joining what is essentially a mob.
They were paid to do the translation, the 66 books. The preface was a personal message to the readers from the 'authors'. That makes it free from the effects of money.
Who wrote/received the letters of John I, II, and III?
What makes you think Revelation was not quite late in that century? 2 Thess has a warning not to get excited because of some letter that will come their way saying that the Day of the Lord had arrived. Since Revelation starts out with that very theme it would have to have been written after, (even allowing for some time for Thess to be circulated to the same places that Revelation would eventually make it too.
At any rate, Stephen died before the Gospel was sent to the Gentiles. Was Paul sent out empty handed the first time? How much time did Paul spend with disciples and Apostles before his 1st journey.
I suppose what you call Satan I call reason and you are right to do so for sensible thinking and reliance on evidence is the greatest enemy of faith. In that regard it could be said intelligence and free will are from Satan too for they lead one away from faith and superstition.
I think it is best therefore to drink stupid juice and keep yourself locked in a box. Satan could rear his ugly head at you in any moment.
The greatest enemy of faith is a lie and/or any attempt to stop discussion on any topic that is not already fully answered. Faith in the Hollowcaust could be improved via open and frank discussions, right? This 'read this and don't ask' isn't working for anybody.
Faith in the Bible is only one kind of faith, faith in friends and family still uses that same mechanism. How do you prove that what you believe will be tomorrow is actually going to fit in with what actually happens?
When Jesus said He would send the Holy Ghost so they would remember what He had said there, it would not have to be decades and decades before that happened.
The night of 1st day of the resurrection had Him breath the Holy Ghost into some of the followers. The writing could have taken place at any time from that point on. A matter of saying something would be done and then that thing being done at the earliest moment in time. Scripture would not allow for notes to be taken at any time before the cross. If those books contain quotes then that should have been written down only by somebody who saw the event. A witness is 1st person, any further away from that time and place and it is a rummer-has-it.
Any dating that would be past the normal lifetime would mean they could not be that sort of testimony. If the Greek copies around today were made in Grecia then they may have first been copied there. The first journeys were to the temples in the Gentile lands. Why could there not have been Hebrew writings that included the OT and the 4 Gospels. At some point the OT was translated into Greek, why not those 4 books at the same time? Why not when Paul first came to those lands. Every town he visited had a copy of those works already, only the latest 4 were missing would need to be copied. If the Holy Ghost was involved then language barriers would not have been a factor, the translations would have been very accurate.
You seem to know some things about Jesus, or at least have read, that Scripture promotes as being what He can and has done.
When it comes to Satan the Bible should be viewed a bit differently. It is basically saying you better run. We're very sorry for what is about to happen to you and your loved oned. A long time ago something happened that allowed some 'men' to enjoy inflicting all manners of pain onto others. They came to enjoy this very much and they are right behind me. Then a short line about being compensated for having to endure pain by getting something called eternal life in a 'garden'.
The NT says that mankind will be judged on how well the least members of the 'community' are doing. Our current system is based on how well a few can live, the lowest levels do not count and their standard is much lower than those at the top. Satan loves that system, it allows for everything the bible calls an abomination, to be promoted as being 'proper'. The rights of the 'elite' are more than the rights of the dispised.
That all people say 'whoops' once in a while would also indicate that nobody makes the right decisions 100% of the time.
If you have such a different view of Jesus than I do should I not also expect our views on Satan would be quite different also.
He doesn't have to jump up in your face to affect you, the system that exists today is not unique, it has elements from the way things worked before the flood (Horus would have been active before the flood, a fallen one who has been in chains since that time).
Satan can also have men act on his behalf, he does not choose randomly, he can target whole languages (which makes our national boundaries meaningless). Divide the world into 10 languages and the 'kingdoms' would look quite different from todays maps.
When one beast rises from a 'sea' in Revelation, could that be a sea of tears rather than part of the liquid earth?
Anything that causes tears has it's beginning with Satan and the twice dead.
Faith in the Bible is only one kind of faith, faith in friends and family still uses that same mechanism. How do you prove that what you believe will be tomorrow is actually going to fit in with what actually happens?
When Jesus said He would send the Holy Ghost so they would remember what He had said there, it would not have to be decades and decades before that happened.
The night of 1st day of the resurrection had Him breath the Holy Ghost into some of the followers. The writing could have taken place at any time from that point on. A matter of saying something would be done and then that thing being done at the earliest moment in time. Scripture would not allow for notes to be taken at any time before the cross. If those books contain quotes then that should have been written down only by somebody who saw the event. A witness is 1st person, any further away from that time and place and it is a rummer-has-it.
Any dating that would be past the normal lifetime would mean they could not be that sort of testimony. If the Greek copies around today were made in Grecia then they may have first been copied there. The first journeys were to the temples in the Gentile lands. Why could there not have been Hebrew writings that included the OT and the 4 Gospels. At some point the OT was translated into Greek, why not those 4 books at the same time? Why not when Paul first came to those lands. Every town he visited had a copy of those works already, only the latest 4 were missing would need to be copied. If the Holy Ghost was involved then language barriers would not have been a factor, the translations would have been very accurate.
You seem to know some things about Jesus, or at least have read, that Scripture promotes as being what He can and has done.
When it comes to Satan the Bible should be viewed a bit differently. It is basically saying you better run. We're very sorry for what is about to happen to you and your loved oned. A long time ago something happened that allowed some 'men' to enjoy inflicting all manners of pain onto others. They came to enjoy this very much and they are right behind me. Then a short line about being compensated for having to endure pain by getting something called eternal life in a 'garden'.
The NT says that mankind will be judged on how well the least members of the 'community' are doing. Our current system is based on how well a few can live, the lowest levels do not count and their standard is much lower than those at the top. Satan loves that system, it allows for everything the bible calls an abomination, to be promoted as being 'proper'. The rights of the 'elite' are more than the rights of the dispised.
That all people say 'whoops' once in a while would also indicate that nobody makes the right decisions 100% of the time.
If you have such a different view of Jesus than I do should I not also expect our views on Satan would be quite different also.
He doesn't have to jump up in your face to affect you, the system that exists today is not unique, it has elements from the way things worked before the flood (Horus would have been active before the flood, a fallen one who has been in chains since that time).
Satan can also have men act on his behalf, he does not choose randomly, he can target whole languages (which makes our national boundaries meaningless). Divide the world into 10 languages and the 'kingdoms' would look quite different from todays maps.
When one beast rises from a 'sea' in Revelation, could that be a sea of tears rather than part of the liquid earth?
Anything that causes tears has it's beginning with Satan and the twice dead.
I have not read every post in this thread as many are long winded but of what I did read I notice that the other christian writings of the day are not being looked at. I am talking of Gnostic Gospels. But, none the less, I see very little evidence being oresented that any one really knows anything about the origins of the bible - the Who, Where, When, Why it was put together in its present form and by whom.
It is impossible for me to take any of this seriously since the authenticity of the bible is impossible to verify. In fact it is much easier to prove that it is a bunch of non-sense than it is to prove it is truth. In fact, the "faithful" ( a misnomer) have nothing to go on except blind faith which makes as much sense as fire walking if you believe it can't be done.
If you study the history, you will find that jesus was only considered a great teacher up until 300 years later when he was deified by Constantine who ordered the bible to be compiled for his own personal reasons. That is why the gospels of the other eight appossals was left out - they didn't fit with Constantine's political agenda.
The bible is a lie by omission. And because it has been mistranslated since Constantine by just about every pope and king since to suit their own purposes. You may as well believe in Pooh. At least he makes more sense.
It is impossible for me to take any of this seriously since the authenticity of the bible is impossible to verify. In fact it is much easier to prove that it is a bunch of non-sense than it is to prove it is truth. In fact, the "faithful" ( a misnomer) have nothing to go on except blind faith which makes as much sense as fire walking if you believe it can't be done.
If you study the history, you will find that jesus was only considered a great teacher up until 300 years later when he was deified by Constantine who ordered the bible to be compiled for his own personal reasons. That is why the gospels of the other eight appossals was left out - they didn't fit with Constantine's political agenda.
The bible is a lie by omission. And because it has been mistranslated since Constantine by just about every pope and king since to suit their own purposes. You may as well believe in Pooh. At least he makes more sense.
I'm pretty sure everybody is quite familiar to some pagan holidays that are celebrated by Christians. Most people would agree that Jesus true birthday is about mid-sept. Count back 9 months and you end up in mid December. So instead of celebration His birth people are actually celebrating His conception. I don't see a great deal wrong with that, other than the people are completely void of that knowledge.
When wasJesus Born?
Best Guess: September 29, 5 B.C.
Want the details? Read more below.
Biblical scholars readily tell us that it was most likely NOT on December 25th, A.D. 0. Why?
When was Jesus Born?
You should try this new thing that the web has, it's called a search engine and it's not all that new.
Christians also celebrate Passover on the wrong date in some years. For some reason they count a new moon before the spring equinox as the moon that determines which day passover falls on. They should be looking for the 1st new moon after that equinox.
The difference, well there are some factors but you figure it out.
Best Guess: September 29, 5 B.C.
Want the details? Read more below.
Biblical scholars readily tell us that it was most likely NOT on December 25th, A.D. 0. Why?
When was Jesus Born?
You should try this new thing that the web has, it's called a search engine and it's not all that new.
Christians also celebrate Passover on the wrong date in some years. For some reason they count a new moon before the spring equinox as the moon that determines which day passover falls on. They should be looking for the 1st new moon after that equinox.
The difference, well there are some factors but you figure it out.
Yeah whatever...:roll:
Why don't you hop on Google and gather some evidence that he actually existed then...
And concerning the supposed census at the time Jesus was allegedly born...have you never found it strange that Caesar Augustus ordered the people to go to the city of their birth to be counted? What kind of nonsense is that? The purpose of a census, even then, was to count the number of people in a given area, not to tell the government where they were born. Forcing people to travel to the city of their birth would have created an administrative nightmare...
The author of Luke obviously had never taken part in a census, and had no idea how one would be conducted, or what it's purpose was...
What's a google?
Why would it be strange to go to your home-town. People were associated with their city of birth back then, Jesus of Nazareth, Mary of Bethany. Do those things ring a bell. When Joseph was anointed back when he was a baby he would have been registered as 'belonging' to a city. This census was to mesh the two databases, the old one and the one to be created, then Rome would know who was still alive. If Joseph has registered in Nazareth Rome would not know this was a Joseph refistered in Bethlehem. The Romans did things the easy and logical way, you want to mess it up so nobody knows who is who anymore, brilliant.
Why would it be strange to go to your home-town. People were associated with their city of birth back then, Jesus of Nazareth, Mary of Bethany. Do those things ring a bell. When Joseph was anointed back when he was a baby he would have been registered as 'belonging' to a city. This census was to mesh the two databases, the old one and the one to be created, then Rome would know who was still alive. If Joseph has registered in Nazareth Rome would not know this was a Joseph refistered in Bethlehem. The Romans did things the easy and logical way, you want to mess it up so nobody knows who is who anymore, brilliant.
Wasn't the Book of Enoch rediscovered in those scrolls? Interesting that they will take bits and pieces and write a 'new bible' around those finds but finding something that pertains to Enoch goes largely ignored.
Vannie would certainly get some perspective on what Angels are SJP would get some idea of what a part of Heaven actually looks like (in that he does not want to go under any circumstance).
Did you have something specific in mind when you say 'trouble'?
Vannie would certainly get some perspective on what Angels are SJP would get some idea of what a part of Heaven actually looks like (in that he does not want to go under any circumstance).
Did you have something specific in mind when you say 'trouble'?
The trouble was getting the scrolls content released from the catholic curators, it took more than thirty years for them to be publicly available. They fought every step of the way, no one really knows what they hid or destroyed. The best example of the book of enoch I think was the Ethiopian. The state of the histories is very much scrambled by design. The truth is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands, like those of the public. What enoch described is from the perspective of the unsophisticated ancient, he had no familiarity with technologys he may have witnessed.
Nice try...but the truth is that it didn't happen that way at all...
So you're now asserting that Jesus was born in 5 BCE, that's just fine for the purposes of this demonstration.
Matthew says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, and there was the whole slaughter of the innocents debacle, which cannot bear historical scrutiny...
Luke says Mary was pregnant with Jesus while she and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, and that he was born there. They went to Bethlehem upon the orders of Quirinius the governor of Syria to have their census taken. (it still doesn't make sense that they would go to the city of Joseph's birth, but no matter)
We know that Herod the Great died in 4 BC, which somewhat supports your earlier dating of Jesus' birth.
Hoiwever, we also know with out a doubt that the census that Qurinius took was in the year 6 CE, ten years after the death of Herod.
Any idea why Luke would have Jesus born 10 years after Matthew?
Which one is fabrication, or are they both?
I have a pretty good idea, but I'm sure you don't want to hear it...
Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you sure they had the fragments? It would seem that it was the Jews who kept them from being examined (until state approval)
That is the best preserved. Are you saying that a 'child' taken from the far north and then given a 'cruise around the world with a few stops along the way' would have trouble explaining what he saw. He might not know all the inner-workings of a car or be familiar with the speeds but his explanation to his people would have been understood by his people.
The events in that book take place over a period of 300 years. The visions we are given about how fast they cruise in heaven leans more towards a smooth animation rather than the still photo's we are most familiar with.
The one thing I found useful was to NOT type in 'ten thousand' when doing a words search.
What I find rather funny is that people who believe the bible is the word of god can only prove it is by using the bible. They fail to see the irony of that. The bible can be proven by many, many sources to be a work of fiction. But to prove their faith, they claim that it is precisely that it is not provable. Their faith is dependent on the fact that it cannot be proven to be true yet they believe. How that makes sense to them is one of life's great mysteries - kind like their god: all merciful and loving unless you don't bow down and kiss his butt every day, then all hell breaks lose.
Like you would actually know for sure.
I usually date it back 30 years from when John was first called, Pilate was there in 26AD so that is the earliest.
31 days after Mary gave birth she would have been purified so she could enter the temple in Jerusalem to have Jesus anointed, from there they would have headed straight to Egypt. The slaughter would have been very close to this time, Jesus could have even been getting anointed when that order was given. The order wasn't given 2 years after His birth, Herod gave that number so he could be certain of getting Jesus. How many were killed? Why would the Romans record something like that, Herods men were probably skulking around doing the deed in darkness rather than the town square at high-noon. Why would they write about it?
Maybe they were supposed to gather at the house of the oldest living member of a family.
On what day in 4BC. He could have died shortly after he gave that order, he could have been dead by the time Joseph got to Egypt. It doesn't say they stayed in Egypt for years and years, all it says it that Jesus had to be called up out of Egypt, which He was.
The year changes at the 1st new moon after the spring equinox. If Jesus was born in Sept then 30 days later He was on His way to Egypt. That leaves a lot of days left in 4BC for Herod to die. Even the Dec. date allows for the same thing although time is more critical.
Neither one is in error, the scales on your eyes are introducing the error.
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] But recently, confirmation that Quirinius was in Syria during the first Roman census taken between 8 B.C. and 5 B.C. has been found.[/FONT] "
Quirinius and the Census
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]And as for Quirinius being the governor of Syria during this census, it is worth noting that the Bible never calls him the governor, at least the New King James Version doesn't. It says he was governing in Syria. And we know that Quirinius was indeed governing in some capacity in this region at this time. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] Records also indicate that Quirinius was no minor figure in Roman politics. His name is mentioned in Res Gestae - The Deeds of Augustus by Augustus placing him as consul as early as 12 B.C.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] The Roman historian Tacitus also mentions that Quirinius was appointed by Augustus to be an advisor to his young son Caius Caesar in Armenia well before the census of 6 A.D. - Caius was sent to administer Syria in 1 A.D. and was wounded in nearby Armenia in 3 A.D. Evidently, Augustus wanted someone who was experienced in previously administering the region to advise his son. Who better then Quirinius?[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] The first century historian Josephus also mentions that Quirinius became governor later on in 6 A.D.: He wrote: [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] "Quirinius, a Roman senator who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them all until he had become consul, was appointed governor of Syria by Caesar and was given the task of assessing property there and in Judea." [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] So who was in charge as the assessor of property in Judea during the first census? Just as the bible had said all along, Quirinius.
[/FONT]"
Well Cliffy I'm not trying to do that. I'm not trying to prove hell exists when I quote some verse or passage that mentions that place. I'm only showing what the Bible has to say about hell as not many have a very clear understanding of what is actually in print. The common view (around here)is closer to what some 12 year old under a blanket with a flashlight late at night would come up with rather than what is in the Bible.
This is a deliberate and blatant lie put forth by the Christians because it is absolutely true that Matthew and Luke do not agree on the time that Jesus was born.
There is no record of an earlier census taken during Herod's reign, and no historical evidence to support that Quirinius held the seat of governor of Syria twice.
This was fabricated by Christians, because they knew it would be the death of their assertions that the bible was a historical document.
The Date of the Nativity in Luke
Rejection of Pascal's Wager:On Herod and Quirinius
Also I'd like you to point out how you figure Jesus could have aged 10 years in 31 days...