Questionable Behavior of 'God's Prophets' from the Abrahamic Religions

a reply to: windword

See ... I just learned something new. And with everything new we learn, the story unravels more. That's why when people say not to look closely but just 'have faith' ... I say, have faith in what? If it can't hold up to being studied, then it's not worth having faith in. Common sense ... make sure that what you 'have faith in' is actually true.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
^^ That post has common sense. Jesus actions spoke boldly. He broke with the Old Testament laws and ideals that the Pharisees had. He was mercy and love. The OT was death and terror.

You might get the same feelings about the North American native tribes about being a warring bunch of savages that had no culture or civil organisations according to some text books .I guess there may be two ways of looking at things and dating is always ambiguous .Modern Egyptology and their dates have still not been reckoned unless if you want to believe them . A vid that can raise questions can be made as to who actually discovered America but we know there were people here before Columbus ever showed up . a reply to: dollukka

And you have the documentation and context as to what constituted a synagogue at the time of Jesus ? Do , please show me your source for what a synagogue would look like . a reply to: windword

You really need to study up on the resurrected body .Flesh and blood ? I think not . a reply to: zardust

Jesus didn't break with the laws of the old testament , He fulfilled them .You nor I cannot keep them but He did . a reply to: FlyersFan

a reply to: the2ofusr1

He fulfilled them. He perfected them. And ignoring them was part of perfecting them. He picked corn and healed on the Sabbath. He told people not to stone the woman caught in adultery. He did his own thing. He taught the SPIRIT of the law .. not the legalistic mess that it had become.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yea Jesus sat next to Moses and Abraham.... If we assume the bibles all true. Since there's little doubt amongst real archeologists that the bible is not historically accurate. Spinning bible verses as if they were true is dishonest.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Nazareth wasn't the "city" that the Bible continually suggests it was. Sorry, but the story of Jesus attending synagogue and then being rejected by the townspeople just doesn't add up. This is either a mistranslation, a mistake or purposeful interpolation to reinforce the Nazareth myth, done so by the Roman Catholics to cover the fact that the Jesus of note was an Essene of the Nazorean sect imo.

The world has been blessed by the fact that excavation at Nazareth has been conducted by Catholic archaeologists. In an earlier age they may well have "found" sandals neatly inscribed with "property of Jesus Christ". As it is, they diligently extract every last drop of sanctity from some pretty meagre findings. Yet for all their creative interpretations even the Franciscans cannot disguise the fact that the lack of evidence for a pre-Jesus village at the Nazareth site is virtually total. -

Yet if we are speaking of such an obscure hamlet the 'Jesus of Nazareth' story begins to fall apart.

For example, the whole 'rejection in his homeland' story requires at a minimum a synagogue in which the godman can 'blaspheme.' Where was the synagogue in this tiny bucolic hamlet? Why was it not obvious to the first pilgrims like Helena (see below) – it would, after all, have been far more pertinent to her hero than a well? In reality, such a small, rustic community could never have afforded its own holy scrolls, let alone a dedicated building to house them. As peasant farmers almost certainly they would have been illiterate to a man.

If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard his pious utterances for years.

Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them, surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' (Luke 2.42-49) when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship?

Indeed, had no one mentioned what had happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds, infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not made the 'holy family' rich?

- See more at: www.jesusneverexisted.com...

Yes there is a spirit to the law but Jesus fulfilled the letter of the law .He was a sinless sacrifice for our sins .Our Passover lamb without spot or blemish . a reply to: FlyersFan

a reply to: FlyersFan

I guess then Jesus taught us that the god of the Old Testament was wrong. Jesus didn't fulfill the OT phrophicies, because they predicted Emanuel a warrior king who would throw off the yoke of Rome. Jesus said he was full filling the prophecy. But since he wasn't what was phrophesized the Jews didn't believe him.

That's not even counting the fact the books of the bible weren't written until after the temple was desroyed. So the logical assumption is that it was prophesied after the fact.

a reply to: ArtemisE There you go with your science facts again. It is very well stated that it takes faith to believe and that everyone will be delusional in the end. I get the point though in science people don't walk on water unissisted feed thousands and on and on. Why beat a dead horse? Is it the goal of most here to drag the rest down with them?

So are you suggesting that Jesus may have attended synagogue and some archaeologist might not have been able to tell by the dirt left behind from 2000 years ? Are you saying the bible says that Nazareth was a big bustling town? Do please show me where in scripture it says this . a reply to: windword ETA and the Roman Catholic church was much later if you follow along the narrative

FF I think if you were to do what the Jehovah witnesses did in redacting the KJV bible from all of the OT scripture Jesus spoke you might be left with the words ,He wept .. a reply to: FlyersFan

People don't understand that a all powerful God could have created everything in one day if He would have wanted to .. A good question might be ,why 6 ... a reply to: deadeyedick

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Th Bible says that Nazareth was a city. It wasn't.

The Roman Catholics compiled the Bible well after the supposed life and death of Jesus Christ.

a reply to: deadeyedick

No it's the goal of most to break up the lies that the organized religions spout as truth.

I can't believe for a conspiracy site that most can't tell religion is the anchient worlds big brother. Hell , really it's brilliant.


"Do what we say do or you'll go to hell."

Well do you have any proof?

" proof!?! You don't need proof! If everything science has found disproves it. That's ok. You don't need proof you need faith."



I think the reason for the " everyone else is wrong" part . Is because the original authors knew it was fake and used faith as a get out of jail free card. They knew it would be disproven. So they covered there tracks.

a reply to: windword

Yep and IMHO that discredits any phrophicies. Since they all were recorded after the fact.

I thought it was a town ...got a link to it being called a city ? a reply to: windword

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
People don't understand that a all powerful God could have created everything in one day if He would have wanted to .. A good question might be ,why 6 ... a reply to: deadeyedick

Exactly, because that's what you need him to do. Your deities are always exactly what you want them to be, aren't they? Strange, that.