The Bible Is A Forgery

reply to post by Akragon

Originally posted by Akragon
I was baptized Christian but at that point i didn't believe in God.

It was only after i studied the bible and many other scriptures, i came to the realization that God does exist, and most christians haven't got a clue about whats in their own book.

So to answer your question... No im not christian, i subscibe to no ones inturpretation of scripture other then my own. Though i have found many who understand scripture as i do.

And those people are almost never christian

Thanks for your honest reply. I have seen you around ATS and was just curious as to what you believed in.

Strangely enough, I don’t actually classify myself as a Christian either. There are a few things within Christianity, which I disagree with, and in a way, I am sort of a unique Christian denomination that only exists, in my head, and heart.

I wouldn’t go as far as the OP has gone, but I believe the truth lies somewhere between both Gnosticism, and Christianity.


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by Akragon

 

Originally posted by Akragon
I was baptized Christian but at that point i didn't believe in God.

It was only after i studied the bible and many other scriptures, i came to the realization that God does exist, and most christians haven't got a clue about whats in their own book.

So to answer your question... No im not christian, i subscibe to no ones inturpretation of scripture other then my own. Though i have found many who understand scripture as i do.

And those people are almost never christian

Thanks for your honest reply. I have seen you around ATS and was just curious as to what you believed in.

Strangely enough, I don’t actually classify myself as a Christian either. There are a few things within Christianity, which I disagree with, and in a way, I am sort of a unique Christian denomination that only exists, in my head, and heart.

I wouldn’t go as far as the OP has gone, but I believe the truth lies somewhere between both Gnosticism, and Christianity.


- JC

All the truth you need is within you my friend. And both the bible and gnostic texts conferm that.

If you read my posts you can easily see exactly what i believe, and of course if you have quesitons i'll be happy to anwer them

reply to post by Gibborium

Originally posted by Gibborium
Joecroft, in response to your reply.

Murder and killing, are one and the same thing! The word “kill” makes up part of the definition of the word “ratsach”

First, ratsach is a primitive root. That means it is a word in and of itself. It is not derived from another word. Strong's Concordance reference is 7523. It is the act of homicide, murder, with intent. It is translated in the KJV into 10 different forms: slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + 0310 1, slayeth 1, death 1.

The word for kill, (what most people assume is meant in Ex 20:13) is nakah, which is also a primitive root. It's primary use is to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill. Strong's reference is 5221.

They are two completely different words, used for two specific forms of killing. One for murder, the other for causing death. Only humans are murdered (ratsach) in the hebrew language.

Thanks for pointing out the definitions but it doesn’t appear to be that simple to me.

I have found a few sources which state that the correct Hebrew phrase is “lo tirtzack”, which apparetnly translates to “"any kind of killing whatsoever."

Although having said that, there does apears to be a lot of differences in opinions on this subject.

Originally posted by Gibborium
So are we to ignore Liviticus and the laws which God gave to Moses about the sacrificial system?

IMO yes…

Some of the laws are rabbinical Laws, in other words they came from men who added extra laws, too the Ten Commandments. IMO men brought in the sacrificial laws, (along with many other laws) not God.

There is also the verse Hosea 6.6

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice and the acknowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.

Jesus even repeats Hosea 6.6 in the verse Mathew 12:7

If you had known what these words mean, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.

Originally posted by Gibborium
Here is where the OP also strays from the context of the OT. He will not read it because of all the violence (my paraphrase) therein. And, you have a misconception of the meaning. The offerings were not meaningless because God did not require them. They were meaningless because the Israelites were making sacrifices strictly in obedience to the law to appease God, not out of love (reverence) of God.

God did not need to be appeased by sacrifices of animals; IMO at that point in time, he needed to be appeased by the keeping of the Ten Commandments only.

Originally posted by Gibborium
Leviticus 22:31 “Keep my commands and follow them. I am the LORD. 32 Do not profane my holy name, for I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the LORD, who made you holy 33 and who brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the LORD.”NIV

Yes, but the problem is that man brought in his own laws, which did not come from the God. I don’t know if you have ever heard of a Jewish group named the “Karite jews”… these Jews recognize that there are certain laws in the Jewish texts, which came not from God, but came predominately from the orthodox Jews.

Originally posted by Gibborium
Now please do not misunderstand my intentions for responding to your post. It is for clarification. Although the response may seem curt or direct, because I want to keep it short and to the point, I do this in kindness and a gentle spirit. If I have offended you, I apologise.

There is no need to apologize I am not offended by anything you have written. I understand that you were just pointing out the correct definition of the word “murder”, which I will admit, is a complicated topic, on many different levels.


- JC

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
But as far as the commandment "Thou shalt not Murder" goes, it is meaningless when you need to protect yourself/family.

Yes, I know what you mean. If I just had to defend myself it is much different, but if in a difficult situation, involving family and friends, it’s hard to know what I would do, until faced with it, in the moment. I would like to think I would find another way out, other than having to take someone’s life, maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part.

In the judicial system there are so many different versions of “murder”, to the extent where it becomes a very blurry line between right and wrong. God sees all and knows all; he knows our hearts and our intentions, which is why he is the best judge.


- JC

reply to post by LeoVirgo



Hey Leovirgo

Originally posted by Leovirgo
Hi Joecraft...

Btw it’s Croft, not Craft lol

Originally posted by Leovirgo
He taught us how to live more for the life of Spirit and in doing so...this life is not the life to fight for. Knowing he was living for the life of Spirit....he also chose and came to a understanding, that it would not be right for him to fight for this life when they came to want him killed. It was not a easy path...but he stay sure footed and strong in knowing what the nature of Spirit would do.

Jesus is a great teacher in how to live for the life of Spirit over the life of flesh.

Yes I go along with your sentiment and IMO Jesus shows us that we are more than just flesh, and that is the very reason why we should live for the spirit, because are bodies are only fleeting, but our spirits are to be eternal.

Jesus death and resurrection actually shows us, that death is not the end, and that there is a higher authority above us, that we are all a part of. This was all part of God’s plan, I believe, and is the reason why Jesus does not command angels from heaven, to save himself, or to strike down his enemies.


- JC

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by Akragon

 

Could you explain further on this "grave sin" in Mat 12... I just read it, and i didn't find anything refering to a "great sin"

Maybe I can shed some light on this for you. NOTurTypical is referring to the Pharisees opinion of Jesus. They claimed the miracles he did were a result of satan working in Jesus's life. That the miracles were a result of satanic influence. They were looking for a way to denounce his authority because they knew his miracles were real. They could not accept that it was God/Jehovah working through him.

I still found nothing refering to this being the reason he spoke in parables. This was a regular thing, there was many people trying to prove he wasn't the son of God. He spoke in parables because only the ones that understood him will understand what they meant.

I know the reason he spoke in parables, but i didn't find a great sin that starting him speaking in parables.

It should be apparently obvious. Christ spoke openly to the people until the Pharisees linked His miracles to the power of Beelzebub. After that encounter Christ never again spoke openly to the masses w/o teaching in parables only. He told His disciples the meaing, but for the masses, only parables and not a peep more.

But wouldn't that also be an indication that the words he spoke openly before was taken out of context or misunderstood altogether? Which is what I was saying originally. I always wondered if he came back, how would you know he was the one and only Christ? It couldn't be by image only because know one knows what he really looks like. Would it be his powers? How would people be able to distingish him from any other demon/devil workings?

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


1. His teaching would never contradict scripture.
2. He still has the nail wounds in His hands and feet.
3. He still has the spear wound in His side.

reply to post by Joecroft


What a privilege it is to be able to hold a discussion with civility.

Trying to stay on the OP topic, One of the problems with many today, from both sides of the argument, is they are not willing to listen to the other point of view and try to understand where that person is coming from. I think it stems from so many having made discourse concerning scripture from their own opinion(s) and not done the research to back up their claims.

This is the problem with the OP. In my opinion, he has misstated the intent of what he wanted to show in not only his title but in many of the words he has chosen to use. He also, is unwilling to take into consideration what others are saying. He simply restates his opinion and then tries to verify it with out of context quotes/information. This is why I will not answer him any longer. He is closed minded and tries to intimidate with ridicule.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Saying that it says in the Bible it is true does not make it so. I sincerely believe you have no way of proving any Divine revelation. Not by the words of the book itself nor from the interpretations of a thousand scholars neither makes it Divine revelation. As better critics of the Bible than myself have questioned. If it's divine revelation why are there so many contradictions and outright mistakes, hardly an advertisement for omnipotence and divinity.
Ezekiel 4
2And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
I haven't included all 15 of the ridiculous verses in this particular book but on the basis of this verse alone it seems more the ramblings of somebody with a severe disorder rather than any divine being. If you are students of the bible like some on here lay some claims to be you will concede that this is not the only absurdity and/or contradiction in a supposed divine work.
I know that not all people that study the Bible are totally against evolution but I must ask where are the Unicorns? Something else mentioned in the divine unalterable word of God.
Wandering slightly but back to as much defence of the OP as I can muster for I would concede that some of the points he raises in his argument are demonstrably untrue and that the council of Nicea seemed to be about crushing Arianism. One author states that any alterations was about the only wrongdoing one is not able to ascribe to that meeting. However I find the book far from being divine and the plank of his argument that it is and indeed was written as a tool of political oppression wholly sustainable.

reply to post by goldentorch

Saying that it says in the Bible it is true does not make it so. I sincerely believe you have no way of proving any Divine revelation. Not by the words of the book itself nor from the interpretations of a thousand scholars neither makes it Divine revelation.

I'm telling you what I believe and why, not telling you what to believe. You say it's untrue with an equal amount of conviction, so if you're allowed to make absolute statements, then so am I. I never said I could PROVE divine authorship but only that I am convinced it's so.

As better critics of the Bible than myself have questioned. If it's divine revelation why are there so many contradictions and outright mistakes, hardly an advertisement for omnipotence and divinity.

When scholars disagree and neither side can disprove the other, then we all have to choose which side makes the most sense to us. And the claim of contradictions and mistakes is made in ignorance of how translation and textual criticism work. By the standards used for any other ancient extant manuscripts, the Bible stands above all contenders in terms of number, quality, and nearness to the originals. We're in the realm of legal evidence here, as well as archaeology and linguistics. There are plenty of sites where you can read about these things.

In your other comments you also make the mistake of reading modern sensibilities and mores into ancient cultures. What you call ridiculous is your opinion, and not a scholarly one at all. Unless you're a historian or otherwise well-read in these things, don't expect me to blindly swallow your claims. I've seen so many cut-and-pasted articles from places like infidels.org that this sort of thing never comes as any surprise.

You boldly claim, "If you are students of the bible... you will concede..." But who are you to say? If you are so sure of the Bible's faults, then you will also concede that you're only parroting the standard anti-Christian talking points.Questions about unicorns and other ridiculous atheistic fare are pretty far off topic here. We all have opinions about a lot of things, but I'm not chasing all of them down in this thread.

Originally posted by mayabong
Turn the other cheek
Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars

Probably some things I'd put in there if I wanted passive taxpaying subjects.

Precisely! "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto God that which is God's"

When we consider that the Caesars considered themselves living Gods, they made out coming and going with this one. They got your worldly possessions through taxation and your soul through worship. The crucified Christ was actually Titus, the son of emperor and living God, Vespasian. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Titus was the first Roman Emperor to ascend the throne after his own father. Titus is best known for his destruction of the Temple Mount as recorded by Jewish defector Josephus aka Titus Flavius Josephus the author of what many consider the only historical mentions of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. And so a traitorous Jewish priest taken into the Roman court documenting the fall of Jerusalem and the triumphs of Titus from the comforts of Rome. Quite a score for the Romans. Once you've beaten your enemy, write their contemporary history from your perspective and toss their historical claim as "chosen" by God to the common crowd. Brilliant.

Sorry, double post.

reply to post by Hemisphere

many consider the only historical mentions of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels.

What about the Babylonian Talmud?

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Now lets hear you something relevant instead of tedious and asinine rants.

I'm still waiting for you to do address the numerous questions that have been brought up and you've ignored. You can start with the historical evidence that books of the New Testament were written prior to 100AD, and that a list of Canonical texts which differs by only a few books existed before 200AD.

Then explain why Jesus, the Divine Messenger that brought gnosis to the world, was born a Jew, lived his whole life in Judea, died on a cross in Jerusalem, and never took notice of the fact that the God the Jews worshipped was a bumbling demiurge.

Finally, you can reconcile the contradictory nature of Gnostic dualistic polytheism and Judaic non-dualistic monotheism, and explain why it makes more sense for Jesus to have completely contrary beliefs, and provide secret knowledge to a few insiders, which would only become known 120 years after his death, as opposed to the clear historical evidence of the evolution of Christian Gnosticism from a non-Christian beginning predecessor which took form centuries before Christ and eventually grew to be a short-lived, but mature sect 120 years after Christ.

For bonus points, you can explain why you brought up the Council of Nicaea and what relevance it has to the matter at hand.

1) The first christian bible is the Codex

2) Because he was born in Jerusalem - though he travelled to Egypt and India and England from the age of 12-30 when he dissapears from the Bible. We all have to be born somewhere.

3) Jesus spent his adult lifer fighting the demiurge - thats why the Sanhedrin and the Romans killed him. They worshipped the demiurge.

4) The knowledge of the Gnosis was destined only for the elect - not the masses. As I have stated many time, Gnosticism is not Judaism - it is the anti-thesis of Judaism.

5) Religious knowledge that existed prior to the Gnosis came from the demiurge - Christ came to free man from the demiurge with the gnosis - not keep him enslaved.

6)_The council of Nicea was the moment the first codified Bible was created to empower the demiurge by stealing the name of Christ in order to ensnare Christians in the lies of the demiurge by using the name of christ himself = the ultimate cynical act of a cynical religion run by a corrupt Roman Emperor.

Happy now ?

ljb, they will continue rephrasing the questions. They just don't like your answers.

"You can't teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Now lets hear you something relevant instead of tedious and asinine rants.

I'm still waiting for you to do address the numerous questions that have been brought up and you've ignored. You can start with the historical evidence that books of the New Testament were written prior to 100AD, and that a list of Canonical texts which differs by only a few books existed before 200AD.

Then explain why Jesus, the Divine Messenger that brought gnosis to the world, was born a Jew, lived his whole life in Judea, died on a cross in Jerusalem, and never took notice of the fact that the God the Jews worshipped was a bumbling demiurge.

Finally, you can reconcile the contradictory nature of Gnostic dualistic polytheism and Judaic non-dualistic monotheism, and explain why it makes more sense for Jesus to have completely contrary beliefs, and provide secret knowledge to a few insiders, which would only become known 120 years after his death, as opposed to the clear historical evidence of the evolution of Christian Gnosticism from a non-Christian beginning predecessor which took form centuries before Christ and eventually grew to be a short-lived, but mature sect 120 years after Christ.

For bonus points, you can explain why you brought up the Council of Nicaea and what relevance it has to the matter at hand.

1) The first christian bible is the Codex

2) Because he was born in Jerusalem - though he travelled to Egypt and India and England from the age of 12-30 when he dissapears from the Bible. We all have to be born somewhere.

3) Jesus spent his adult lifer fighting the demiurge - thats why the Sanhedrin and the Romans killed him. They worshipped the demiurge.

4) The knowledge of the Gnosis was destined only for the elect - not the masses. As I have stated many time, Gnosticism is not Judaism - it is the anti-thesis of Judaism.

5) Religious knowledge that existed prior to the Gnosis came from the demiurge - Christ came to free man from the demiurge with the gnosis - not keep him enslaved.

6)_The council of Nicea was the moment the first codified Bible was created to empower the demiurge by stealing the name of Christ in order to ensnare Christians in the lies of the demiurge by using the name of christ himself = the ultimate cynical act of a cynical religion run by a corrupt Roman Emperor.

Happy now ?

ljb, they will continue rephrasing the questions. They just don't like your answers.

"You can't teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

ha ha ha ha excellent

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

many consider the only historical mentions of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels.

What about the Babylonian Talmud?

Good luck with that. I suspected you were Babylonian. It reads "many consider".

After reading that post, that was the one item that bothered you? That's progress, congratulations.

Over the last day I have had some interesting spiritual insights.

For the open minded they are here ;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will put the rest up when I have typed them all out.

Needless to say they reveal the true story of the Gospels and the Gnosis.

The small bit posted so far is just a tny section of the insight.

For those who seek to attack and not ever listen, I leave you with a quote from the most important Gospel of all - the Gospel of Thomas given to Thomas by the risen Christ and kept out of the Bible as it reveals the knowledge and importance of the Gnosis.

en.wikipedia.org...

The teaching of salvation (i.e., entering the Kingdom of Heaven) that is found in The Gospel of Thomas is neither that of "works" nor of "grace" as the dichotomy is found in the canonical gospels, but what might be called a third way, that of insight. The overriding concern of The Gospel of Thomas is to find the light within in order to be a light unto the world ;

34 - Yeshua says: If a blind person leads a blind person, both together fall into a pit.

39 - Yeshua says: The dogmatists° and the scriptualists° have received the keys of recognition, but they have hidden them. They did not enter, nor did they permit those to enter who wished to. Yet you—become astute as serpents and innocent as doves.

or in another version

39 . Jesus said,"The Pharisees and learned have taken the Keys of Knowledge and concealed them. They have not opened that door and entered into Knowledge, and those who wish to enter they will not allow the Keys. So you must be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.

reply to post by taccj9903


The Rapture won't be happeniing ever my friend... "EVER".

All the Rapture and End Times are, just a boogyman made up by TPTB back then, to keep the people in fear og god and to obey the rules of the book..

reply to post by Hemisphere

I suspected you were Babylonian

lol, no. The Babylonian Talmud is a Jewish scripture.

It mentions Jesus, and His miracles.

Yet attributes them to Him being a 'magician' and not the Son of God.