It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did Jesus kill ?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:27 PM

Originally posted by texastig
The New Testament books are validated because the apostles wrote them and those under them wrote them.


Not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met Jesus.

We do not have even ONE authentic claim to have met a historical Jesus.


posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:31 PM
yes he did kill but it was covered up

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:50 PM
Hey Texas Tig

I gather from your posts you are NOT conversant in Koine Greek nor with any Galilean Aramaic and have even less Hebrew—and thus cannot read the ‘bible’ in their original languages. More’s the pity.

How can anyone profess to 'believe' something they cannot even read is beyond me.

However you claim that the so-called Contradictions in the Gospel narratives are all taken out of context, but what do you make of these random examples?

What instructions did R. Yehoshua bar Yosef give to the 12 when they were sent out ‘two by two’ to pre-announce the arrival of the Nazir of David…
Matthew 10:10 ‘Iesous’ instructs them specifically NOT to take a staff, nor to wear sandals.
Mark 6:8-9 ‘Iesous’ instructs them specifically to WEAR sandals & take a staff on their journey.

How many beasts did R. Yehoshua ride when flouring Zechariah 9:9 under the nose of the Roman Army looking down from the Temple Mount’s Fortess Antonia?
See Matthew 21:2-7 =two animals
v. Mark 11:2-7 = one animal

Did you know that the Greek LXX Septuaginta text ADDS the word AND to the poetic parallelism of this verse about a she-ass? Can’t you see Matthew midrashically following Version (2) below of Zech 9:9 and Mark midrashically following Version (1) below?


The Pointed (vowelled) Masoretic Text Version (used by Jews & protestants based on a single MSS from Leningrad c. 960 AD)

MT: Zech: 9: 9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
Behold, your King comes to you: he is the Righteous One, carrying Salvation; yet is humble, and riding upon an ass, yea, even upon a colt, the foal of an ass. 10 But lo…. he shall dictate terms of Peace to the Goyi m (=gentiles) : yea, his dominion shall be from one sea to the other, even from one river to the next, to the ends of the land [of Yisro’el].

The Hebrew Underlay (Vorglag) to the LXX Greek Septuaginta of BC 250 (used by the Dead Sea Scroll Community and Roman Catholics via the Latin Vulgate of Jerome c. 360 AD)

9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim [it] aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, the King is coming to you: both Rightous and a Saviour, he is meek and riding on an ass, and ALSO a young foal. 9:10 And … and, lo abundance and peace shall come from the Gentiles ; and he shall rule over the waters as far as the sea, and the rivers [to] the ends of the earth.

Matthew 21:2-7 two of the groupies steal for ‘Iesous’ an ass AND a colt from the village of Bethphage.

Mark 11:2-7 They steal ONLY a single colt (but promise to return I guess it’s ok…)

Then who (exactly) WAS the father of Joseph?
Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was ‘Yakkov’
v. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was ‘Heli.’

(I’m always amused by the old Pauline verse: ‘And pay NO attention to those endless genealogies !’) :

Also comparing the ‘midrashically altered’ list of descendents of ‘king’ David in order to try and fit in the gemmatria numerology of the name David in Hebrew (DVD =14) in the 1st gospel (‘of Matthew’ whoever he was) to the 3rd (‘of Luke’ whoever he was) shows that between BCE 680 and BCE 630 the 1st gospel has to remove the reigns of Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim and a couple of others besides !

No contradictions huh? The 3rd canonical Gospel sure shows a lot more than 14 generations between David (c. BCE 940) and the time of the Exile (BCE 587)..go ahead count 'em.

There are in fact more than 150 of these discrepancies of details, and more than 1500 differences in the actual ‘Greek words’ forced into the mouth of the Greek Speaking Iesous in the 4 Greek canonical gospels – by far the vast majority of them being either mis-translations from the Aramaic (e.g. using Aram. Garba ‘leper’ for Garbara = ‘jar-maker’ etc.) or deliberate changes made to hide some very embarrassing episodes (‘Lord we perish !” in the 1st gospel story of the socalled Stilling of the Storm Episode compared to the 2nd Gospel’s version of the same sayings placed into the Greek speaking mouths of his followers: ‘Rabbi, wake up ! Don’t you even care that we are drowning ? !’ &tc)

These are NOT ‘simple contradictions taken out of context’ but are textual contradictions owing to textual manipulations for THEOLOGICAL reasons by scribes who were manipulating these texts for their own agendas—the writers were not writing history as we know it but as the writer of the 4th gospel freely admits (‘John’ whoever he was) “THESE THINGS WERE WRITTEN SO THAT YOU WILL BELIEVE THAT IESOUS IS THE CHRISTOS AND BY BELIEVING YOU WILL HAVE LIFE BY HIS NAME…” – which means they felt free to basically lie about what is included in their ‘gospel’ material..

Do you own a Synopticon (verse by verse parallel column editions of the sayings &tc. in the canonical council approved Greek gospels)? You can spot the contradictions easier that way, as Bart Erhman has recommended for lay persons who are not very conversant with this material.

Just a thought….

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by texastig
Incest was not against the law back then. How do you think they were supposed to populate the earth?

I think you missed out on the bible lessons. Anyone who have sex \ed: (deliberately and voluntarilly)/ed. with anyone closer than cousin shall die. Some still live by that rule, and I tend to agree with their destinies.

[edit]And even mother-son type relations are condemned even though she is not his biological mother. And you think we're advanced these days?[/edit]

[edit on 11/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

[edit on 11/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:41 PM
J Yod
E Nikkud 0
Sj Sjin
U Wav
' Jod? I'd enter Sisj
Sj Sjinn (forced) and I'd resist the idea that any power should restrict ny ability to shine my back.

Ah AlYe.

Feel free to fetch a calculator... and look up the oldest known Greek handwrittened manuscripts and get it. It's 616, not 666.... As true as I am crazy!

[edit on 11/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

[edit on 11/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

[edit on 11/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic] Phuh

[edit on 11/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by one_enlightened_mind

Seriously? Humanity had nothing to do with what went into the bible? Seriously? Bibliomancy much?

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by Noinden

Indeed. The Bible as it is presented is an expression of politics and a remnant of a power that killed innocent people carrying other belief systems than the ruling "Universal" One in such terrible ways and in so big numbers, that it would make all the warlords from our century bleach into saints compared to them.

The Bible is my hobby alright, but I walk with goats. In a way I don't know how I would feel if Rome suddenly burnt down in a day....

[edit on 14/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:59 PM
The dead sea scrolls, which is older than the Bible has an entirely different account of creation, but because it wasnt divinely inspired it makes it a void document? This does not make any logical sense at all.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Ghost in the Machine
The dead sea scrolls, which is older than the Bible has an entirely different account of creation, but because it wasnt divinely inspired it makes it a void document? This does not make any logical sense at all.

Please enlighten us as to how the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible compare?

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by karl 12

Bertrand Russel used Jesus's killing of a fig tree and swine as part of his moral objections to religion:

"There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig-tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig-tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when he came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever'.... and Peter.... saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to History. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects." (Russell, 1929: "Why I am not a Christian",

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:48 AM
reply to post by Ghost in the Machine

Haha. So now the Dead Sea Scrolls are older than Moses? Get real. Some of the manuscripts found at Qumran are older than our time (AD), but just a very few. And most of the books of the Bible belong to the BC æra. The NT is approximately 2000 years old and the same can be said about the library found at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls).

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in