"Jesus is a liar"

Moocowman, No problem…deciphering was easy, my brother…I still have not figured this online stuff either…

There once was a hot-headed, man’s man…he was a plain fisherman, who met JC and was changed for ever…later in life he said..

2 Peter 1:21------“because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Matthew Henry said of this passage…”The Holy Spirit inspired holy men to speak and write. He so assisted and directed them in delivering what they had received from him, that they clearly expressed what they made known. So that the Scriptures are to be accounted the words of the Holy Ghost, and all the plainness and simplicity, all the power and all the propriety of the words and expressions, come from God.”

====

…carried along…in the greek speaks of a sailboat being moved by the wind…in the same way God didn’t supersede the writer’s personality, but moved them along to write his message…

I think it’s kinda cool that He did not treat us as robots, but allowed freewill…so if we choose to turn to him…who is our ABBA Father…our daddy…with intimacy and a desire to fill his world with love (that’s his message, really)

OCCAM’s RAZOR would challenge us to the simplest, most basic…outcome…I just don’t have enough faith to believe, it all just happened…thru time….and change….got to be a cause, to the effect we see.
Either way, I appreciate your decorum, here!

[edit on 8-8-2008 by OldThinker]

No problem…deciphering was easy, my brother…I still have not figured this online stuff either…

There once was a hot-headed, man’s man…he was a plain fisherman, who met JC and was changed for ever…later in life he said..

2 Peter 1:21------“because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Matthew Henry said of this passage…”The Holy Spirit inspired holy men to speak and write. He so assisted and directed them in delivering what they had received from him, that they clearly expressed what they made known. So that the Scriptures are to be accounted the words of the Holy Ghost, and all the plainness and simplicity, all the power and all the propriety of the words and expressions, come from God.”

====

…carried along…in the greek speaks of a sailboat being moved by the wind…in the same way God didn’t supersede the writer’s personality, but moved them along to write his message…

I think it’s kinda cool that He did not treat us as robots, but allowed freewill…so if we choose to turn to him…who is our ABBA Father…our daddy…with intimacy and a desire to fill his world with love (that’s his message, really)

OCCAM’s RAZOR would challenge us to the simplest, most basic…outcome…I just don’t have enough faith to believe, it all just happened…thru time….and change….got to be a cause, to the effect we see.
Either way, I appreciate your decorum, here!

I went basically agnostic a while back after being a life long Catholic. Believe me, it's easier on the noggin.

Man, I hear you!!!!!

Take a longer look...though.

It will be better for you...Joshua 1:8, please read it if you have time my brother!

OT

o.k. old thinker you've got your license and you are ordained, now leave the kids alone.

Originally posted by rightwingnut
o.k. old thinker you've got your license and you are ordained, now leave the kids alone.

??????????

You have too much sugar rightwingnut?

A little ritalin might help...

Don't speak so confidently, with things you don't know...

Sounds like to me, you are avoiding something>say the premise/subject matter at hand?

And no, I'm not an ordained minister...no, I'm not paid to be 'Christian'....I'm doing it voluntarily, big boy!

Originally posted by jpm1602
I went basically agnostic a while back after being a life long Catholic. Believe me, it's easier on the noggin.

Catholic, huh?

What did they do...to push you to be agnostic?

What are your thoughts of them now?

OT

reply to post by zorgon


I agree, I belive in my heart that there is a god. and no doubt that jesus existed. but i feel that the bible it self in imperfect. what says our bible is the right over the jew or other religions bibles. hes right, its all how man told their versions of how jesus was. man wrote the bible and man is impure! I belive there is a god. and that the second coming of jesus is near and we will all get our answers. the fight between evil and good is all around us and we cant see most of it. but some of its right under our noses with wars, and nuclear talk, its all going to come to a conclusion and lead to the end of the world. its all in revelations. for more information revelations and how it is intruritated in the cristion bible visitwww.worldslastchance.com

Belive it or not but The Man that would become known as Jesus and also Jesus Christ or the Christ DID NOT found the Christian Religion.

Again, in simplest terms:

Jesus didn't start the Christian Religion. If Jesus were alive today he'd scoff at the Christian religion. And When the christ does return it will be the christians that give him and his teachings the most greff. Do you smell the irony?

At any rate, to know the untainted truth about that man you should check into the Urantia Book.

Originally posted by OldThinker
yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story

Only by man's hand. Scrolls, translations, and manuscripts not agreeing with popular beliefs were destroyed and taken out of the "Bible." Other themes that weren't even in the original Bibles were included, such as "John's Comma" written to make Jesus part of the Trinity.

Other translations often even improvised. An example is with Moses's "horns," appearing in English translations because of the mistranslation of the definition of "rays of light."

The Council of Nicea made sure that Christianity fortified itself as a Trinitarian sect, and lose any forms of unitarianism, including texts that didn't agree with the Trinity.

The Council of Nicea made sure that Christianity fortified itself as a Trinitarian sect, and lose any forms of unitarianism, including texts that didn't agree with the Trinity.


Unitarianism? what's that mean to you?

BTW, JC is a gentlemen...and the authors were not robots...

He allowed them to use their own personality...and the knowledge they had at the time....HE didn't FORCE himself on them and HE doesn't force Himself on us...

The Spirit 'moved' them to write, as a ship is moved by the wind......."because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 peter 1:21

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by OldThinker
yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story

Only by man's hand. Scrolls, translations, and manuscripts not agreeing with popular beliefs were destroyed and taken out of the "Bible." Other themes that weren't even in the original Bibles were included, such as "John's Comma" written to make Jesus part of the Trinity.

Other translations often even improvised. An example is with Moses's "horns," appearing in English translations because of the mistranslation of the definition of "rays of light."

The Council of Nicea made sure that Christianity fortified itself as a Trinitarian sect, and lose any forms of unitarianism, including texts that didn't agree with the Trinity.

??????

You've been reading the internet too much DJ!

Take a gander at this, ok? Thots?

www.johnankerberg.com...

OT out...

You are a liar. I am a liar. You neigbhbors lie. Why you feel compelled to hate on Jesus is beyond me. Peace be with you.

Originally posted by jpm1602
You are a liar. I am a liar. You neigbhbors lie. Why you feel compelled to hate on Jesus is beyond me. Peace be with you.

jpm1602,

Thanks for your input...who are you addressing this comment too...

I do believe the 'Jesus is a liar' opinion has merit on a purely LOGICAL basis...but OT doesn't fall in that group...I hold to the Jesus is LORD belief..

OT

www.christianitytoday.com...

Skeptics, please see above link...Bono from the rock group U2, also agrees...HE is LORD...

He believes there is no room for Jesus, just being a good guy...

Thoughts?

OT

Skeptics, here's the details...

Thoughts????????????

Assayas: What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn't so "peace and love"?

Bono: There's nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that's why they're so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you're a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.

Assayas: Speaking of bloody action movies, we were talking about South and Central America last time. The Jesuit priests arrived there with the gospel in one hand and a rifle in the other.

Bono: I know, I know. Religion can be the enemy of God. It's often what happens when God, like Elvis, has left the building. [laughs] A list of instructions where there was once conviction; dogma where once people just did it; a congregation led by a man where once they were led by the Holy Spirit. Discipline replacing discipleship. Why are you chuckling?

Assayas: I was wondering if you said all of that to the Pope the day you met him.

Bono: Let's not get too hard on the Holy Roman Church here. The Church has its problems, but the older I get, the more comfort I find there. The physical experience of being in a crowd of largely humble people, heads bowed, murmuring prayers, stories told in stained-glass windows …

Assayas: So you won't be critical.

Bono: No, I can be critical, especially on the topic of contraception. But when I meet someone like Sister Benedicta and see her work with AIDS orphans in Addis Ababa, or Sister Ann doing the same in Malawi, or Father Jack Fenukan and his group Concern all over Africa, when I meet priests and nuns tending to the sick and the poor and giving up much easier lives to do so, I surrender a little easier.

Assayas: But you met the man himself. Was it a great experience?

Bono: … [W]e all knew why we were there. The Pontiff was about to make an important statement about the inhumanity and injustice of poor countries spending so much of their national income paying back old loans to rich countries. Serious business. He was fighting hard against his Parkinson's. It was clearly an act of will for him to be there. I was oddly moved … by his humility, and then by the incredible speech he made, even if it was in whispers. During the preamble, he seemed to be staring at me. I wondered. Was it the fact that I was wearing my blue fly-shades? So I took them off in case I was causing some offense. When I was introduced to him, he was still staring at them. He kept looking at them in my hand, so I offered them to him as a gift in return for the rosary he had just given me.

Assayas: Didn't he put them on?

Bono: Not only did he put them on, he smiled the wickedest grin you could ever imagine. He was a comedian. His sense of humor was completely intact. Flashbulbs popped, and I thought: "Wow! The Drop the Debt campaign will have the Pope in my glasses on the front page of every newspaper."

Assayas: I don't remember seeing that photograph anywhere, though.

Bono: Nor did we. It seems his courtiers did not have the same sense of humor. Fair enough. I guess they could see the T-shirts.

Later in the conversation:
Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?

Bono: Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven't heard you talk about that.

Bono: I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Assayas: Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I'd be interested to hear that.

Bono: That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep s---. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

Bono later says it all comes down to how we regard Jesus:

Bono: … [I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. …When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s--- and everybody else's. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that's the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it.

Hey ATS skeptic, are you out there tonight?

You do not have to be so nice to Christians!!!!!


If Jesus Christ is not who He says he is...the LORD of Heaven and Earth...

he's not a nice guy/prophet/etc. as many religions tag him...including Islam!

he is a lunatic, sick guy at best...

and a liar more preferably...

OT sides on the LORD side...what say you???? Am I wrong????????

Gday,

Originally posted by OldThinker
What we have in our hands has been touched by human hands...but the consistency is uncanny...just look at the DEAD SEA SCROLLS version of the old testament, and pick up that Gideon bible printed last year in the hotel room...THEY ARE EXACT!
[edit on 23-7-2008 by OldThinker]

Bollocks.
This false claim is endlessly repeated by ignorant believers.
But the reality is very different.

Cconsider the example of Isaiah, which believers claim was exactly the same in the DSS :

In fact, there were several version of Isaiah found in the DSS -
* one somewhat different (1QIsaa)
* one very different to our modern version (1QIsab)
* a few more scraps (1QIsac etc.)

The famous Great Isaiah scroll is the 1QIsaa one - far from being the same, it has many differences.

Some of these differences were so significant that modern bible translations have been CHANGED to match these differences.

Of course, faithful believers preach the opposite.

Here are a few of those differences :

Isaiah 3:24
The RSV and NRSV consider the meaning of the MT difficult and find clarification in 1QIsaa, which adds bsht (shame) following ky, understood in its usual meaning of “for” or “because,” translating, “for shame shall take the place of beauty.” However, HOTTP points out that ky can be understood as a noun meaning “branding mark,” and the MT can be translated, without resorting to the 1QIsaa reading, as does the NJV, “a burn instead of beauty.” This would mean that the 1QIsaa scribe may have been unfamiliar with the rare meaning of ky as a noun and supplied the Hebrew word for “shame” as a reasonable complement.

Isaiah 7:14
NIV, alone, makes note of the 1QIsaa reading, wqr’ (masculine) for the MT wqr’t (apparently second person feminine singular, but perhaps third person). It seems clear that 1QIsaa is once again seeking to simplify a difficult form (Rosenbloom 1970:125). There seems little reason to provide a textual note here.

Isaiah 8:2
The MT and 4QIsae have a first person future verb form for “I will call as witness(es),” while 1QIsaa reads wh’d, an imperative form, “and have it attested,” as in NRSV. The NIV translates the MT (with 4QIsae), “And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah … as reliable witnesses for me.” Some translations translate the consonants of the MT, but change the vowel of the first letter from we to wa, changing it to the past tense. The future tense of the NIV, however, is a legitimate tense shift in prophetic literature, reflecting the prophet’s certainty that he will be the agent of God’s message. In any case, it does not seem necessary to resort to the 1QIsaa reading.

Isaiah 11:6
The MT and 4QIsac add to the list of two animals, “calf and beast of prey (lion),” a third, wmry’ “and the fatling.” Early commentators proposed that this noun be emended to a verb, ymr’w “will feed.” This reading is now found in 1QIsaa and is recommended by the HOTTP committee for translation, as in the GNB, “Calves and lion cubs will feed together.” The NJV mentions this Qumran reading in a note. The NIV also notes this reading in a footnote but fails to mention the Qumran evidence.

There are many more, and they have been posted here many times.

Sadly, believers like OldThinker just ignore these facts and keep preaching their false beliefs.

Next time this subject comes up, OldThinker will preach exactly the same false belief that they are EXACTLY the same, when anyone who checks the facts will find the are actually quite different.


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
He was the foremost Roman historian of his time. The Annuls were written 14 years after Christ's death. Are we to assume this great historian couldn't get his facts straight a mere 14 years after the fact?

Rubbish.
Tacitus wrote in early 2nd century - about 80 YEARS afterwards.
Another apologists who failed to check the facts (and the name - it's "Annals", not "Annuls". )

He gets Pilate's title wrong,
and he uses the Christian term "Christ", not a Roman name.

This shows that all he does is repeat Christian beliefs.
It's not based on facts or records at all.


K.