Skeptic's Annotated Bible the ultimate christian challenge

reply to post by tinfoilman


Good point, but I think most people pick debunking Christianity because they are unfamiliar with other systems of faith. Kinda hard to bash a religion unless you've done your research or been indoctrinated into it at one times or another.

I also like that you pointed out disproving a certain religion, or that religion's text (Bible) doesn't mean there isn't a higher power or "God" it simply means we've discredited and disprove the flawed human perceptions of God put down in the book...

reply to post by TheMythLives


TheMythLives I totally agree with you that the world would be alot better place if we all accepted everyone for who they were and left it at that,long as it didnt harm anyone else of course.I do think though its ok to have reasonable coversation about opposing ideas and if no agreement or bettering somebodys understanding(in your opinion) can be found leave it at that and walk away.I think the problem is when opposing ideas come up,instead of letting it be one trys to force it on the other.That in my opinion is what differs and seperates us and causes problems.

reply to post by trey85


In that case let's respect grown men who believe in Santa Claus or that Belly Button Lint can talk... Its one thing to respect each other no matter the beliefs but its another to see the ignorance of the masses and not at least make the attempt to show them what they were told is a lie...

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Yes make an attemt but, if you just cant convince someone that santa claus was made to make kids happy and your at a brick wall with them ,just let it be. They may still be ignorant ,but they can be ignorant without having to have a conflict with them.I do agree with you the masses are ignorant to whats really going on ,but if all you can do is fight with them it does nothing but make it worse.

reply to post by rich23


Okay, first I couldn't stand Bush. Second I can't stand Obama either. Also, we're well aware of the things other people that aren't Christians don't like about Christianity. I mean what? Christian bashing threads only account for like 40% of all new recent threads on ATS?

I assure you, we're well aware of what you don't like about our religion. Now, let's see if you're actually making critical claims or simply just bashing Christianity. What don't you like about your own religion? Is it perfect? What don't you like about other religions like Islam? Is Christianity the only religion you have a complaint about? I know I personally could complain about my own religion all day if I thought it would fix anything. However, I have never ONCE felt the need to insult someone or bash another's religion.

Look, what I'm trying to say is let's pretend God's not real? Then what do you supposed caused all these wars and all this violence? It wasn't Christianity. It wasn't God. God's not real for our simulation right? At least not the Christian God. That means the Christian Satan isn't real either. If he's not real then what do YOU think causes evil?

In my opinion, if God isn't real, then this "evil" is just caused by dumb people. And yes dumb people will use religion to justify what they do. Dumb people will use ANYTHING to justify what they do.

You think that if we didn't have religion that these people wouldn't have anything to justify their actions with? Take away religion and these people may become more peaceful for a while, but eventually the dumb will resurface. They'll just make another religion or find something else to justify what they do. You may be able to get rid of the Bibles, but you will never get rid of the dumb.

They will find something to justify their evil actions regardless.

But please don't blame what Bush did on Christianity. In Christianity it says Satan is in control of this world and all the world leaders get their power from Satan. If Bush was a true Christian and really believed in the Bible then he would have to believe that he worked directly for Satan. He's the only one with the power to have made him President and allowed him to be President at this time until God rids the world of Satan.

So, we see in reality that Bush was really either a Devil worshiper, or simply, another Atheist in disguise. But he can't tell anybody that he's an Atheist because if he did, the morons wouldn't vote for him because the morons don't even read their own Bible that says the president gets his power from Satan. But they go voting for them and hoping for change. Well according to Christianity they're all just puppets of the same ruler.

So, in the end, Bush can't be a Christian because he doesn't believe it when the book says all world leaders are under control of Satan. Obama can't be a Christian because he doesn't believe the book when it says all world leaders get their power from Satan. Unless they either believe or in fact know they're working for the Devil which would make them Devil worshipers and not Christians. Remember, what did Satan tempt Jesus with?

Now I'm not saying that Satan is real. I am saying we can know for sure that Bush and Obama and Kerry and anyone whoever ran for President cannot be a Christian because doing so would conflict with the very religion they claim to worship.

So, they are all LIARS because if they didn't the morons wouldn't vote for them. However, we already know that most politicians are liars except for maybe a few like Ron Paul and even him, who knows? Why would a Christian seek for worldly power when they know they have to bow to the Devil to get it? Because THEY DON'T READ THE BOOK!

However, we know politicians lie ALL the TIME except when they say they believe in the Bible right? We just assume they're telling the truth? BIG MISTAKE. We should assume they're lying just as hard when they say they believe in the Bible as they do any other time they lie because if they DID BELIEVE IN IT they wouldn't be trying to gain power over the world which they know they could only get from Satan if they in fact truly believed in what the Book said.

Betcha Obama doesn't tell ya about that part of the Bible the next time he runs for election. But ask him if he's a Christian and he'll say yes. Ask if he believes he works for Satan and he'll say no. However, the two cannot both be true. Therefore he is a liar and an Atheist that does not believe in what the book truly says.

So, please don't go blaming what the devil worshiping politicians do on Christianity. Also, please don't blame what the Atheist non-believer politicians do on Christianity. Don't blame Christianity for what Bush did or for what Obama does. Christianity tells you those people work for the Devil.

Maybe those politicians that say they're Christians might like to pick up that book and see what it really says about them and then decide if they still believe it or not.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

Rich23: I've already addressed that. If you actually created this thread w/ an ounce of sincerity, you should respond to my post about that site and its errors rather than just continuing the bashing.

thx

God let people rape his words,
so people can not hide behind words

God let people rape his words,
because people have to find him with logic

God let people rape his words,
so people can carry the cross with him,
one god, one cross

Salvation is not in scripture,
it is in mind and heart, where they come together in one.

Thats why it looks contradicting,
part only looks, part is mistranslated,
parts were not meant to be there, parts were denied to be there.

salvation is not in scriptures, but in you
god is one, so be one, care about all around you,
and you will find one in logic.

Does anyone know where I could get a pre-king james version of the bible? Are there even still such versions left?

reply to post by thereaintnospoon


Well you can get the Bishop's Bible which is a KJV base Bible. Or if you're really bored then you can learn Greek and Hebrew and what not and then I guess you could just go straight to the original source.

I wanted to add 1 more thing.The similiaritys between jesus and pagen gods.www.scribd.com... This page talks just about horus ,but there were many more.You that know about them feel free to share your outtlooks on them as well.Just a reminder ,no im not a christian ,but im not doing this to bash them,but to get educated christians outlooks on these issues.

www.sanfords.net...

Here is another link with more gods beside just horus.

Originally posted by trey85
I wanted to add 1 more thing.The similiaritys between jesus and pagen gods.www.scribd.com... This page talks just about horus ,but there were many more.You that know about them feel free to share your outtlooks on them as well.Just a reminder ,no im not a christian ,but im not doing this to bash them,but to get educated christians outlooks on these issues.

I've seen this idea posted around and there are similiarities. Unfortunately that link isn't loading for me right now. I'll take a look at it when I get a chance from another net connection. Here I'm on SAT and it's storming so...

Anyway, the point is there are similarities between different Gods including Horus, but the ones usually mentioned are usually outright lies and have for the most part been completely debunked such as the ones in Zeitgeist.

Since I can't see the page right now, perhaps do yourself a favor and make sure you haven't been fooled. Google around for Horus and check Wikipedia and Encyclopedias and some alternate sources for what you're saying and a lot of times you'll find that when people say Jesus is JUST LIKE some other God they are almost always outright lying because they know you won't double check them.

There are similarities between different Gods, but the actual REAL ones almost never get posted in the debate. This is because if they can make Jesus seem like a copy by lying they make people stop believing in him. That's a logical fallacy though. Even if he was an exact copy, I still choose to believe Jesus was the non-counterfeit God.

However, all that ever gets posted usually are the ones that are outright incorrect lies that can be easily debunked by a simple fact check. Like most of the claims in Zeitgeist which are just plain untrue or are at best misleading.

For example some of the claims I'm referring to are things like when they say Krishna was crucified on the cross just like Jesus which is completely untrue. Krishna was never crucified and a simple fact check will bear that out. Krishna was also not a virgin birth. He was the family's eighth child. However, many people continue to go around spreading the lies that Krishna was of a virgin birth and was crucified. A simple fact check will refute this. Don't take my word for it.

Some things dealing with Horus that are stated to be similarities, but that are not actually true are that Horus didn't have a virgin birth. Didn't have 12 disciples, wasn't crucified and wasn't raised from the dead. Wasn't born on the 25th and so on. However, people continue to go around making those claims even though a simple do it yourself fact check will show all those claims are in fact not true.

People keep going around making these claims, but they're simply not true. I can't read the link you posted right now, I will later, but please make sure you double check everything for yourself because when it comes to this particular topic, people saying Jesus was a copied God, there are a lot of outright lies circulating about the topic.

EDIT: Also, I wanted to say that second link you posted I can get to and yes it is filled with lies. Almost all the claims on that page have been proven false.

Please double check that for yourself. For example it has exactly what I'm talking about at the second link. A quote from it is

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One"). Not true. Krishna
was his mother's 8th son.

His father was a carpenter. This not true. His father was not a carpenter.

His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
This is not true, Krishna was born in a prison.

And it goes on and on. Same with Horus. On the second link it claims Horus was born of the virgin Isis, but Isis was not a virgin. Isis was a widow. The claims are just simply untrue. I'm sorry, but you've been had. Please double check all these claims for yourself.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 21-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by dalan.

Besides the fact that some of the first "scribes" weren't even professionals and you can tell by the fact that they used no punctuation whatsoever?? So literal translations came down to what scribes thought the text should be saying.

The first scribes would've been professionals. You do know that being a scribe was a profession, right? You statement about punctuation shows your ignorance. Punctuation didn't exist back then. It was very common for a whole text to be written together in one long line. In all "capital" letters too as "small" letters didn't exist.

The New Testament is simply a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, and anyone who claims that it is trustworthy is simply speaking from a biased opinion.

Do you trust other works of antiquity? They are copies as well. The New Testament has way more existing manuscripts left over than any other work. No other antiquated work comes close to touching the New Testament. Today, scholars are aware of 5,700 hundred manuscripts of all kinds that contain some or all of the New Testament--and that total is growing. Compared to other writings of that time, we have three for Tacitus, 200 for Suetonius, and 133 for Josephus. Going further, there are only 75 for Herodotus and 20 of Thucydides writings. Ehrman, in his book Text of the New Testament goes on to say:

...the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of material.

Having this number of manuscripts of the New Testament is good because we can see more clearly what the variants are and are better able to judge their significance.. One thing that Ehrman didn't tell you when he said that, "there are more variants in the New Testament than there are words!" is that many of these errors are inconsequential. An example would be in, Romans I think, in one Greek manuscript, the scribe wrote "horse" instead of "servant" or something like that, making a sentence read, "we were horses to you." With this type of error though, it is easy to look through it because the Greek word for "horse" is very similar to that for "servant". There are essentially four different groups for the errors in the New Testament. Three of them, which are the largest, aren't a big deal at all. The fourth one, for the more serious variants, is the smallest. Interestingly, among all the variants of the New Testament, none of them affect a single doctrine for the Church. Not one.

I really suggest that you pick up a copy of Can We Trust the Gospels?. The author can do a much better, and more thorough, examination of this than I, as I'm rushing to get to lunch! It is always good to read material from an opposing view as well.

[edit on 8/21/2009 by octotom]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


With that train of thought, we shouldn't believe Bart Ehrman's book because, he isn't a believer and doesn't believe the Bible to be accurate. What makes Bart Ehrman's research any more valid than that of a fellow scholar who has reached different conclusions? They're both biblical scholars and what both have to say should be taken into consideration.

reply to post by thereaintnospoon


If you know a little bit of German, Luther's Bible predates the King James by, oh, some 75 years or so. Also, if you have access to such programs as e-Sword or Bibletime [for Linux] you can get both Tyndale's and Wycliffe's translations. They're a few hundred years before the KJV. Then there is "The Great Bible", which was the Geneva Bible [if I'm remembering right] with some commentary about how the monarchy in England was a bad thing. It was this Bible that spurred King James to commission the translation of the KJV. He didn't like the anti-monarchy stuff.

reply to post by trey85


My personal take is that the similarities between Horus/Jesus stem from Satan's desire to counterfeit God's true plan in order to lead man astray so that they worship him, instead of God. Satan knew, as well as the rest of mankind, from Genesis 3:15 onward that God would send the Messiah one day. Satan, in being an angelic being, probably knew more of God's plan of redemption and from the knowledge was able to deceive man into following a false religious system, which included the idea of this god, Horus, having elements that were very similar to what ended up being true in Jesus.

In short, at least from my perspective, Horus is Satan's counterfeit copy of God's true plan, which was later revealed in Jesus. Satan would've done this because he knew what God's plan was for the future, and he would've wanted to lead people astray.

reply to post by octotom


Ah you're falling for it. Please go to Wikipedia any other sites you would like and look up the actual story of Horus and compare Horus's actual story to the story given in the links. Don't be an apologist and apologize to the Atheists and try to explain why the similarities exist, because the similarities they're talking about don't exist. They are OUTRIGHT lying. It has nothing to do with Satan counterfeiting anything. It's just a made up story and so don't be an apologist. Just call them out on their lies.

Here are the claims from the link.

#Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

Isis was not named Isis-Meri. Just Isis and was a widow and was not a virgin. Horus was not born on Dec 25. Was not born in a manger. No star in the east. No wise men. Also, I'll double check, but as far I know the Bible never says anything about three wise men. It says magi and never says how many of them there were. It only talks about three gifts. Also, the Bible doesn't say the magi visited Jesus in the manger. They didn't come until later after he was no longer in the manger.

# He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
No reliable mention anywhere of Horus being baptized.

# Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
Can find no reference to anyone named Anup the Baptizer in any historical text.

# He had 12 disciples.
Simply untrue.

# He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
Horus never raised anyone from the dead.

# He walked on water.
Horus never walked on water.

# Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
Just a completely untrue comparison. Nothing like this happened.

# He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
All untrue. Never crucified.

# He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
Cannot find any actual reliable reference to this anywhere.

# He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").
Complete bull crap.
# Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
Nope
# Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.
And nope.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 21-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by tinfoilman


Yeah, I knew that there were inconsistencies with the whole Horus = Jesus thing, but, I wasn't sure exactly what they were. Thanks for sharing this though. I'll reference it in the future.

I was focusing, in my post, on the broader idea of similarities between the two, giving a reason as to why similarities exist, without concentrating on the details, which I wasn't familiar with.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Also, I'll double check, but as far I know the Bible never says anything about three wise men. It says magi and never says how many of them there were. It only talks about three gifts. Also, the Bible doesn't say the magi visited Jesus in the manger. They didn't come until later after he was no longer in the manger.

You're correct. Matthew 2.1, 11:

Now, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men (magi) from the east came to Jerusalem...Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

No where does Matthew say that it was only three people that came. With the lack of an article, and it being plural, it could've ranged from two to the whole Babylonian priestly class! That Matthew 2.1 says that they men came after Jesus' birth alludes to them not coming the night that he was born, but some time after.

# Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
Just a completely untrue comparison. Nothing like this happened.

This caught my eye. From my understanding, Horus was a god. Therefore, he wouldn't need to be transfigured, as, since he's a god, he would already be in a glorified body. The Transfiguration of Jesus gave Peter, James, and John a "sneak peak" of Jesus in his glorified body since, when he was on Earth, he was in a human body.

Originally posted by trey85
I wanted to add 1 more thing.The similiaritys between jesus and pagen gods.www.scribd.com... This page talks just about horus ,but there were many more.You that know about them feel free to share your outtlooks on them as well.Just a reminder ,no im not a christian ,but im not doing this to bash them,but to get educated christians outlooks on these issues.

You're not trying to educate anyone. Rather maybe you are because you are indoctrinated and don't realize it. Either that or you are a theosophist pushing the religion of the NWO or anti-christ.

All those things have been proven over and over again to be lies. But oh yea, that's right. You only want to post the bogus, you dont want to argue on things that upset your version of reality.

I'll be sure to remember you are NOT a member of the truth movement but a disinfo agent.