Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Sorry, but I don�t think you understood the reasoning. An all powerful and all good god would not be able to create a race that had the opportunity to perpetrate any evil, only good.

Why not? How are robots interesting? How do you grow if you cannot learn from wrong doings?

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Well I tend to disagree with the quote seeing as both of my grandfathers fought in WWII for the British, one of them is Christian but the other was an Atheist and seeing as he was a combat solider can only assume he was in a foxhole at some point...

Okay, if you'd like to be factual sure. Just illustrating that people close to death tend to give more thought to the hereafter.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
For some people it is easy to accept such an offer on the basis that it 'sounds' good. Some people prefer to understand something and know that it is truth before they follow.

Agreed. I didn't expect to win anyone over with my words. It's not even my job. I'm just supposed to point to who can give that understanding.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
The reason I jumped to that conclusion is that Logician states there are only two ways in the bible, that of God or that of Satan.
Seeing as I don�t believe in God or Satan I am I to believe I fall under a third category that does not exist in Christian literature?

I think there's a difference between committing sin and those who worship Satan. If there was no 'in-between' why would people need to be judged as in Revelation?

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
If God gave me free will he would have not stated in his bible that I had no choice, and I quote "...Thou who sayeth there is no God hath committed the ultimate sin." He also would have provided undeniable evidence that he exists so that I would not have to question.

You do have a choice: To believe or not believe. You're not forced into either one. Why would he provide undeniable evidence? It takes work to have faith and believe in hard times. Again, no point to having robots and no growth experience.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Also I like to think that I am a good person even if I am not a Christian, I don�t lie or hurt people, I am kind and will go out of my way to make sure I don�t hurt peoples feelings. This is how I would want my children to be should I ever have any.

Kudos. These are also values Christians strive for.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Even though I am an Atheist I would not push that on my children, in fact I would encourage them to read about as many religions and choices as possible, and have them choose what makes them happy.

Why are you Atheist? I'm not going to throw punches, I really would like to know. I've been agnostic and know what that's like but not atheist. On kids, I'll give the truth as I know it. It is her free will to accept or deny it.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
So if anyone who believes what a certain Christian priest says he heard would be relying totally on 'faith' whether it be true or false? (Not an argument, just trying to understand the logic)

True.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
What I would say to this is that you should be able to tell the difference between real sound waves and voices of your mind. The reason you know that your mother would be talking to you is that you can you hear the familiar sound coming from an external source, and would have a previous image in which to associate the voice to. If you have never seen a person physically speak how could you possibly associate a certain voice tone to that person?

A nice hard question. I have a hard time explaining this. I've gotten answers both direct and indirect. 90% of the time it's indirect. The direct answers are very weird. You know the source because of the feelings that come with it. It's like, you know it's not you because it's not something you'd think. Most of the time it's a good feeling. One time it was the right answer but made me fear that it was right. I apologize for sounding like I'm double-talking. Hope I'm not getting confusing. Again, hard for me to describe.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
To whom would I direct my questions, a fellow human?

Sure, but expect the best answers from God. With humans you have to do a lot of filtering. You have to discern intent, reason, emotion, and complications in the language. God is much easier to understand when the answer comes through.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Someone who only has answers that were in turn fed to them at some point?

Hopefully no-one is fed. Hopefully they have learned by experience or understanding.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Also tell me how I would ask questions to your god? Speaking aloud or silent with no evidence that anyone or anything is listening could not logically offer me answers.

Aloud or silent doesn't matter. You're abolutely correct! Without evidence, without logic. This my friend, is the first step in faith. Wild thing about faith is you make that jump, but then all of the sudden are getting return. It's incredibly bizarre sometimes, others more subtle and I've been known to blame coincidence though I should know better.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
I always used to pray when I was a child before I went to sleep, nothing ever came of it, and no answers were forthcoming.

What specifically did you pray? What were you looking for? Were the answers overlooked? No answers or things revealed whatsoever even over time? Hook up the phone lines again, check the connections. It may take work. Seek and you'll find.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Should I ask the bible?

Ask a book? No, but reading it may answer a lot of questions. You can pray to God before or after reading it asking for understading. I did this a lot because I get frustrated with things I cannot immediately understand. Clarity will come.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
From which I can read 'answers' but ask no counter-questions?

Aha! God is great at the counter-questions. Also bounce them off of other people as well. Again, you may not get entirely accurate answers with people but it can help. I've got to say though, He is expecting you to give it considerable thought and soul searching first.

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
Anyway I have rambled on long enough

once again thanks for replying.

It's cool 'cause you've got some hard-hitting, facinating questions. I'm enjoying the dialogue too.

God Bless and enjoy life to the fullest.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by saint4God]

If God gave me free will he would have not stated in his bible that I had no choice, and I quote "...Thou who sayeth there is no God hath committed the ultimate sin."

How does an affirmation of a truth ( or even an untruth for that matter) negate free will? In other words, if I declare 1+1 is 2 how does that negate your free will? ( Even if I said, 1+1 is 3, how does that negate your free will?)

You are free to accept or reject the thesis.






[edit on 15-12-2004 by Logician]

Amadeus If Jesus isn't real and/or wasn't a part of God's plan wouldn't Israel still have to make offerings to the LORD if Jesus wasn't the ultimate sacrifice. why do you think that God allowed jerusalem to be destroyed by Titus and the Holy of holies to be desecrated by emporer vespasian right after the fact that he[Jesus] was ressurected? And isn't that documented by Josephus? I mean I know that if the Spirit of Elohim still occupied the temple he[vespasian] would have been destroyed on the spot I'm not trying to argue or debate with you, I just wanted to know if you calculated that into your theory about Jesus. And what you said about Jesus being disqualified[of being the moshiach] because of his death, where did you get that from, I would like to read it.

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
There are a LOT of people out there who think they know EXACTLY what Judeo-Christianity/Protestant Christianity or Catholicism is 100% for Sure - the sad fact is that Most people are Misguided & Delusional. Over the many Years there has been a LOT of Manipulation & Distortion of the Faith for Various Reasons - Namely Politics. Not even Priests & Scholars know for sure.

What I an personally waiting for is a MODERN ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the Both the Greek Septuagint & the Original Greek New Testament - by Unbiased Scholarly Experts!!!

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]

I second that, Seraphim! I would love to read a true translation from the oldest texts known, no transliterations....true translations from the original words.

OF course, this translation would need to be done to the closet meaning possible to retain the true meaning all words and passages.

I believe the The Bible has been transliterated so many times that many parts of it now mean something totally different then what it means today.

Sadly, I think that obtaining a true meaning will be very difficult to do. The Torah; for example must be copied preciesly and if any errors are made must be destroyed and started over from the very beginning. ( The end of the NT also echoes a warning to any one who changes any part of the book (Bible).) This is very important to maintain the true or original meaning. HOw much of the true meaning can be easily lost or changed in translating if even a minor error is made and then then lost or changed again in transliterating into other languages?

i have been saying this for years, i agree to the fullest extent, i am so glad that someone else out there can see past all the BS.

Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
Amadeus If Jesus isn't real and/or wasn't a part of God's plan wouldn't Israel still have to make offerings to the LORD if Jesus wasn't the ultimate sacrifice. why do you think that God allowed jerusalem to be destroyed by Titus and the Holy of holies to be desecrated by emporer vespasian right after the fact that he[Jesus] was ressurected? And isn't that documented by Josephus? I mean I know that if the Spirit of Elohim still occupied the temple he[vespasian] would have been destroyed on the spot I'm not trying to argue or debate with you, I just wanted to know if you calculated that into your theory about Jesus. And what you said about Jesus being disqualified[of being the moshiach] because of his death, where did you get that from, I would like to read it.

Kudos! Can't wait to read the responses.

One such book is "The Hidden Gospel - Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus" by Neil Douglas Klotz, Ph.D. published by Quest Books.

From a historical view "The Passover Plot" written in the 70's has some interesting observations. Sorry I just went over my library and could not turn the old tattered paperback up.

As for the thread, from what I have read I think the �Bastard� theory on Yeshua to be contrived as is the "virgin birth".

Looks like the "Church of Rome" is hiding a great many things starting with the slaughter of Yeshua's blood lines. Obviously that Church tried to remove everything Jewish from a story about a Rabi.

I read once that the Greek Tekah (carpenter) was changed from Tekar (Rabi) in one of the many changes made to history by what Jews called the Whore of Babylon or the Catholic Church of Rome. I am not a linguist so if someone who is would like to elaborate please do. The miss-information of this change alone, used in regard to Yeshua's father was the only mention of carpenter in any of the Catholics Canonized Gospels. Yeshua is always called Rabi. Yet how often is He depicted as a carpenter?

Expressions in non-canonized writings concerning His wife such as �she was burned as a raisin by the sun� tend to give me the picture that this Son of David may have followed Solomon�s lead with at least one black wife (Ethiopian?).

From a Chi-Kung (Qi-Gong) view if He allowed the specific points removed from the body as from crucifixion it may be to open �the third eye� past the �valley of death� to increase visions of the future.

I only know the Lord (Son of the Creator of 270 worlds of light) by His heavenly existence and since the cry would come up for "Proof!� like a web site or book I will wait until I have the information in print to bring it up here.
I will say this; at final Judgment expect to be asked for the latest concerning Judaism.
Hope everyone had a merry Christmas.

Quote: "Looks like the "Church of Rome" is hiding a great many things starting with the slaughter of Yeshua's blood lines. Obviously that Church tried to remove everything Jewish from a story about a Rabi."

Ironic No?

Quote: "I read once that the Greek Tekah (carpenter) was changed from Tekar (Rabi) in one of the many changes made to history by what Jews called the Whore of Babylon or the Catholic Church of Rome. I am not a linguist so if someone who is would like to elaborate please do. The miss-information of this change alone, used in regard to Yeshua's father was the only mention of carpenter in any of the Catholics Canonized Gospels. Yeshua is always called Rabi. Yet how often is He depicted as a carpenter?"

Not only that but Mary Magdalene was DEFINITLY NOT a Whore! She was an Apostle/Disciple even above Peter & Paul never even knew Jesus in Person! The Vatican changed so much - they created a Parody Religion. Catholicism is about Kissing the Pope's Ass! Very Spiritual - Ha! How dare they those Bastards!

I just wanted to clarify and say I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and felt Logician represented very well in additon to others who've supported of divine intervention (such as Hailthekingoflights). So well in fact, I really have nothing to add. I'm always interested in questions and new territory though.

Pray, train, study.
God Bless.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Logician

If God gave me free will he would have not stated in his bible that I had no choice, and I quote "...Thou who sayeth there is no God hath committed the ultimate sin."

How does an affirmation of a truth ( or even an untruth for that matter) negate free will? In other words, if I declare 1+1 is 2 how does that negate your free will? ( Even if I said, 1+1 is 3, how does that negate your free will?)

You are free to accept or reject the thesis.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Logician]

This is not even a thesis, it's pure BS. That's what annoys me most with you peeps with bible-folds for your eyes, your use of twisted logic that is build on premises of beliefs and not facts. Free will that is less than free will is not free will. Or if you prefer: >1 IS NOT 1.

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
That's what annoys me most with you peeps...

You peeps? What's that supposed to mean? I feel a hasty generalization coming on...

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
with bible-folds for your eyes,

LOL Okay, I don't care who you are, that there is funny.

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
your use of twisted logic

subjective accusation.

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
that is build on premises of beliefs and not facts.

So? Belief = "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing" Merriam Webster. I'm fairly certain that you have 'beliefs' as well, just not the same ones. We can go through the proof by Q & A if you like.

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
Free will that is less than free will is not free will. Or if you prefer: >1 IS NOT 1.

How can you have free will that is less than free will? It looks to me like Logician is saying despite what a person believes, the truth remains the same.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
That's what annoys me most with you peeps...

You peeps? What's that supposed to mean? I feel a hasty generalization coming on...

Well spotted, now let's move on..

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
with bible-folds for your eyes,

LOL

Okay, I don't care who you are, that there is funny.

Thanx. Took me a while to come up with that one

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
your use of twisted logic

subjective accusation.

Illogical statements claiming to be logical qualifies as "twisted logic" in my book and in some other books as well

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
that is build on premises of beliefs and not facts.

So? Belief = "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing" Merriam Webster. I'm fairly certain that you have 'beliefs' as well, just not the same ones. We can go through the proof by Q & A if you like.

Logic is all about premises. You can prove anything if everyone agrees on whatever premises. But you can't use logic to prove your point if your logic is built upon premises that are not generally accepted but subject of dispute. Therefore you can not use the word of any deity as a premises to reach a logical conclusion.

How can you have free will that is less than free will?

Errm... yeah... that was exactly what I was wondering...

It looks to me like Logician is saying despite what a person believes, the truth remains the same.

There is a problem here though. We have free will to believe anything except that God doesn't exist. Ok, so obviously we are capable of thinking and saying that, but we're going to heck for it. I'm sorry, but if I were to belive in an omnipotent God I can't see him acting out like a hurt child ("buhuhuuu, they don't belive in me, I'm gonna send them all to Heck!". I would belive in a God that rewarded human beings for their empathy, their goodness and kindness of heart, their generosity, their strife to live a rise to their full potential in this abyss of entropy - and not judging them for which book/scripture they believe in, which prophet or preacher or whatever. Our beliefs are strongly connected to which culture and what time in history we are born. If there is a God then he would understand every human being fully and utterly, because then we would be a part of him. And he wouldn't just let one lousy game (lifetime) decide who would go to the heavenly kickoffs. No, he would start a whole series of games (lifetimes) where everyone could have a shot at the title, so that your lifespan, your cultural upbringing and your finacial situation wouldn't decide the outcome of the tournament, but just influence the present game.

The father of Jesus or should I say at least one of the twins that Mary had that fatefull night was a roman centurian his name was "Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera" He forced his attentions on the young women while she was betrothed to Joseph at the time he was stationed at King Herods palace, Mary who was King Herods great grand-daughter may have been attacked while visiting her grandfather. The twins were seperated one raised by highly religious sect called the Essene his brothers name was Thomas .
The acts of Thomas records an incident where Jesus appears to a young man who saw Jesus in the likeness of the apostle Judas Thomas, Jesus then called:"I am not Judas the twin who is also Thomas, I am his brother.
This statement by itself was enough to cause the Nicean council to prohibit the inclusion of this apostles work in the bible.

Jesus was real, and was born of a virgin, for a purpose.... To save us all. He has not doubted anyone, ever! Instead, he died to save us all from sin and death. There was never and has never been anything covered up. It is all there in the bible, in His words, for all of us to see...

Icelandia

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
Illogical statements claiming to be logical qualifies as "twisted logic" in my book and in some other books as well

Oh. I thought they were still illogical *shrug*. I guess it's choice in literature

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
Logic is all about premises. You can prove anything if everyone agrees on whatever premises.

Reason by consensus? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
But you can't use logic to prove your point if your logic is built upon premises that are not generally accepted but subject of dispute.

Why not? Isn't that the basis for 'changing people's minds'? I don't recall any scientists with new ideas saying "I've proved it because that's what everybody else thinks!". Einstein and Copernicus would've never shown up in a science book.

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
Therefore you can not use the word of any deity as a premises to reach a logical conclusion.

If I were to show that by following God's word, you'd have the best possible outcome for humanity, that would not suffice as a logical conclusion?

How can you have free will that is less than free will?

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
Errm... yeah... that was exactly what I was wondering...

Yay! We're both confused!

It looks to me like Logician is saying despite what a person believes, the truth remains the same.

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
There is a problem here though. We have free will to believe anything except that God doesn't exist. Ok, so obviously we are capable of thinking and saying that

Cool, answered you're own question. Makes my job easy

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
, but we're going to heck for it.

Where's heck? And how the heck does one get there? Sorry, enjoying the dialogue too much. Putting my serious face back on....now.

Originally posted by EyesOfTheFuture
I'm sorry, but if I were to belive in an omnipotent God I can't see him acting out like a hurt child ("buhuhuuu, they don't belive in me, I'm gonna send them all to Heck!". I would belive in a God that rewarded human beings for their empathy, their goodness and kindness of heart, their generosity, their strife to live a rise to their full potential in this abyss of entropy - and not judging them for which book/scripture they believe in, which prophet or preacher or whatever. Our beliefs are strongly connected to which culture and what time in history we are born. If there is a God then he would understand every human being fully and utterly, because then we would be a part of him. And he wouldn't just let one lousy game (lifetime) decide who would go to the heavenly kickoffs. No, he would start a whole series of games (lifetimes) where everyone could have a shot at the title, so that your lifespan, your cultural upbringing and your finacial situation wouldn't decide the outcome of the tournament, but just influence the present game.

Revelation talks about those who are subject to judgement who never heard word of him. I'd trust God to be more of a fair judge than anyone on the bench in government. On the other hand, I don't know why someone would refuse to believe because they don't like the fact that God gets his way. He was generous enough to let us choose, now we complain because there are consequences to our bad choices? Hm, seems we're the ones acting child-like to me in that instance.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by saint4God]

Quote: "There was never and has never been anything covered up."

HA, HA, HA, HA - that’s a Good One! I don't know if you've noticed this - but a LARGE amount of Content/Postings on ATS is about what a Total MESS the Bible is! It has been "Edited" & Translated - Many, Many, Many times over throughout History!

Pantheria - you make a good point - this might very well be the truth! I have always been struck by the Polar Contradiction of some of Jesus' Sayings in the Gospel! For Example: a) "I come to bring Fire & Sword" (i.e. a WAR Messiah) vs. B) "Love one another - Turn the other check"
(i.e. Forgiveness, Healing & so on)! Could there have been Two similar looking Messiahs wandering around preaching Different messages @ the Same Time (both appearing as & identified as "Jesus" - Brothers?) - or was this stuff added to the Bible later by Zealous Jewish "Evangelists"!!!

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
I have always been struck by the Polar Contradiction of some of Jesus' Sayings in the Gospel! For Example: a) "I come to bring Fire & Sword" (i.e. a WAR Messiah)

Oh yes, we all remember the large army Jesus amassed and the number of countries he enslaved . Please tell me you didn't take ALL of his parables verbatim. Cold hearts were melted by the fire, our enslavement by sin was slain by a mighty sword indeed! I think he makes these things pretty clear. Taken out of context though, I can see how this is confusing to the general public. My suggestion in that case is to read the whole book, not just verse #X to verse #Y.

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
vs. B) "Love one another - Turn the other check"
(i.e. Forgiveness, Healing & so on)! Could there have been Two similar looking Messiahs wandering around preaching Different messages @ the Same Time (both appearing as & identified as "Jesus" - Brothers?)

Hit the pause button on 'The Life of Brian' for a moment. You don't think this would've been noticed and accused during such cynical times? There's no inconsistency in message and no inconsistency on who Jesus at that time as addressed early in each gospel or the prophet Isaiah.

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
- or was this stuff added to the Bible later by Zealous Jewish "Evangelists"!!!

Most zealots did not follow Jesus. They were looking for a great crusader king like David, which Jesus obviously was not. To add stuff later would've been pointless since they did not believe he was the true Messiah.


[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by pantheria
The father of Jesus or should I say at least one of the twins that Mary had that fatefull night was a roman centurian his name was "Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera" He forced his attentions on the young women while she was betrothed to Joseph at the time he was stationed at King Herods palace, Mary who was King Herods great grand-daughter may have been attacked while visiting her grandfather. The twins were seperated one raised by highly religious sect called the Essene his brothers name was Thomas .
The acts of Thomas records an incident where Jesus appears to a young man who saw Jesus in the likeness of the apostle Judas Thomas, Jesus then called:"I am not Judas the twin who is also Thomas, I am his brother.
This statement by itself was enough to cause the Nicean council to prohibit the inclusion of this apostles work in the bible.

You know, your post is likely to have been passed off as lunacy, as someone making some rather weird and obnoxious claim about Mary, Joseph and Jesus. Expect much of this, after all 2,000 years of brainwashing won't be overcome in a day.

But chalk it up to their not knowing or wanting to know that which is in front of their eyes. Actually that is not true, it is not in front of their eyes, we have to place it there, and even then, they would be understandably hard pressed to deny 2,000 years of Dogma where only the last 20 is the birth of the unstoppable truth. Fear is irrational after all, and you are as close to the truth as we currently have at our disposal and threatening their subliminal fear. The earth and private libraries though will continue to regurgitate that which was intended to be buried and forgotten.

Yes, Jesus was of nobility, but not of Herod who knew it, killed his offspring for it, and Mariam, Joseph, John the Baptist's father, Joseph of Arimathaea and Pollos, were all in on the soap opera.

The virgin birth story is clearly derived from the story of Buddha's birth. Even farther back in time, the virgin "Mother Earth" was dipicted as giving "birth" to life. The Egyptian and many "tribal" cultures represent this story. The Christian stories tend to cut and paste details from many old religions, which was common in forgeries that were rampant during the time of the Bible's compilation by the papacy.

Originally posted by Noob0832
The Christian stories tend to cut and paste details from many old religions, which was common in forgeries that were rampant during the time of the Bible's compilation by the papacy.

Or do these other stories steal the theme of the Bible and how the Savior would be born. I say they do, since mankind has an enemy that seeks to duplicate the things of God and use those things to deceive mankind. This enemy has been around since before man and has seen all the centuries that go by and manipulates people who give themselves over to be used by him(satan) for that purpose.