The Bible Is A Forgery

page: 5
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


Sorry, don't agree with you.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

I am here to debate and learn - but that requires that people are willing to accept their beliefs are wrong.


Oh give us a break, you are clearly not here to learn. Otherwise you'd be asking questions and engaging in debate instead of started threads titled "The Bible Is A Forgery" like you have some concrete evidence that legitimate scholars seem unaware of. You have been presented with ample evidence that completely rips your claims apart and rather than engage in debate you simply cling to citing info from Wikipedia which is a HORRIBLE source of information on ANY subject, and then you stoop to calling people names for picking your weak arguments apart. Debate requires research, and you've shown yourself to be unwilling to do any research beyond perusing Wikipedia.


Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
I am not a genius, but I am also not ignorant.


You've demonstrated plenty of ignorance regarding the subject of this thread.




Finished ranting.

Good.

Now lets hear you something relevant instead of tedious and asinine rants.

Thanks a lot.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rreeves5
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


Sorry, don't agree with you.



Thats very interesting.

Thank you for your fantastic and insightful post.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

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 ?






posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I have a really interesting theory on why Christ was born in the Middle East - but I will save that for tomorrow as I am off to bed.

Please feel free to leave more comments and questions.

I shall enlighten you with the answers to them tomorrow.

Night all.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


It is nothing short of shocking, intellectually atleast, how ignorant christians looking to justify their belief will say "christ perfected Judaism" or "christ brought a purer form of Judaism", etc, when they know nothing at all about Judaism. It would be hilarious if it werent so intellectually self defeating.

I study Judaism and i can corroborate your statement of gnosticism being completely incompatible with Judaism. They are forever opposing concepts. The former seeks to justify animalistic behavior and actions by including them within a greater unity that is entirely impersonal in scope. Good and Evil represent two different poles within the same underlying reality (according this train of thought). They also deliberately pervert the Torah by interpreting it as some gnostic allegory. Where G-d wanted Adam to lust after the forbidden fruit and exercise his own power by disobeying G-ds command. Thus, G-ds commands become understood in the negative as a command against commands. So wherever the concept of "commands" exist, whether in the Book of Genesis, Exodus (they particularly ignore numbers, leviticus and deuteronomy) these are either interpreted via this corrupt and negating logic or ignored all together.

In the end, the Hebraic tradition is antipathetic towards this pagan doctrine of moral relativism. If people think gnosticism is "new" they know nothing of ancient religions. This idea existed already in Greek Mythology and Babylonian/Egyptian Mythology. Why do you think the Egyptians worshipped the nile? It wasnt the "life giving waters" that replenished the nile delta that they worshipped, nor some imagnative "god" that they had deified. Water to the Egyptians represented what water represents to Taoists today; as a substance that fills all voids ie; adapts to whatever situation or reality it enters. Water is completely uniform. There is no way to distinguish one part of it from another. It is completely fluid and just flows with the flow of time.....Water thus was the physical representation of an ideal - or idol - in how one should live his life.

Just as the Hebrews rejected and regarded all 'limitations' (Hebrew Mitzarim) as the the servitude of Egypt (Mitzrayim), so the Greek Hellenists during the 3rd century BCE were regarded as the recent incarnation - albeit a more sphisticated type, of that same pagan drive to transcend "evil" and more importantly HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. The G-d of the bible was thus conceived by the Platonists and later the gnostics as a "demiurge", some figment that the mind of man creates to create order in the world. This was the same corrupt, perverted belief that Shabbati Zevi, the false messiah of the 1600's, who said that the "G-d of Israel" is a lesser god, beneath a god that essentially is the gnostic abraxas.....

Judaism is forever and unequivocally at odds with gnosticism, and so christianity. They are opposites. They are symbolized as Jacob vs Esau... It is not coincidence that the Talmudic Rabbis of the 1st century CE regarded Rome as Edom - who the Torah says "Edom, he is Esau"...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
1) The first christian bible is the Codex


That is not correct and does not answer the question.


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.


There is no evidence that he was born in Jerusalem, and claims that he travelled to India and England are not from authoritative sources. The teaching that we have of his (even the Gnostic stuff) does not reflect Eastern mysticism, so whether he went to India or not is not relevant. I have no idea where you're coming up with England or what possible relevance that might have.


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


The Romans most certainly did not worship the God of the Jews, and there is no evidence at all that Jesus "spent his adult lifer fighting the demiurge." To the contrary, he spent his ministry combatting the Jewish religious authorities who excelled in the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it, and demonstrating what a good Jew believed and how he acted.


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.


Then why was Christ born a Jew, spent his life in Judea and died a Jew among Jews in Jerusalem?


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.


The Gnostics do not believe that we are hostages of the demiurge, so this is not a correct statement. What do you think the "gnosis" that Jesus actually brought consisted of?


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.


This is complete fiction, from beginning to end, and doesn't even make any sense. You've been told that the Council had nothing to do with the selection of Canon, why do you continue to labour under this Dan Brown contrived ignorance?

You claim to be trained in the law, but your arguments are fallacious to a degree that boggles the mind, as if you believe that facts are of so value. How do you expect that anyone will take you seriously when you make such contradictory and obviously false claims?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
At this point in your thread you should have quoted a small amount of text from the site and then linked rather than copy pasting the whole article to ATS

"This article adds more detail to the forgery thesis ;

freethoughtnation.com... "

I almost reported you for plagiarism before noticing you had put a link



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Judaism is forever and unequivocally at odds with gnosticism, and so christianity.


Well, you should take that up with practicers of Kabbalah, as that's the main remnant of Judaic mysticism that stems from Gnosticism. Christianity is another matter, but isn't really germane for the topic at hand, so we'll have to come to that in another thread.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
And in regards to "limitations", all human ideals are limitations. Anything that seeks to keep the G-d of creation out of his creation is a limitation imposed by man on men.. Thus, the Mitzarim (limitations) of Mitzrayim (Egypt) is ultimately the subjugation of mankind to his lower, animal, base nature. That is the ultimate servtude to Egypt (Mitzrayim)... THAT is limitation.

A Gnostic would on the other hand interpret this connection in words as refering to human morality and its imposition of "morality" and habit in the behavior of men as a "evil"... Thus the "exodus" from Egypt would symbolize to the profane gnostic mind a world like we have today; ultra-liberalism... A world where man can just chase after his desires like a dog a stick.....

He IGNORES the real spirit of the Torah becuase his sick and twisted lusts compel him to use his understanding to serve his emotions. As opposed to his emotions serving his understanding. They have the heirarchy ALL TWISTED and so are unable to reason properly.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


First off the 'Bible' isnt even the correct term, its the Scriptures. The term Bible comes from a deity named Byble in ancient times, and was a port town where papyrus reed scrolls were moved through. 'Jesus' isnt even the correct name for the messiah, its only been around for 400 years, since the letter 'J' was invented. He was called Iesus in English. Before that the Greeks called him Iesous.

What you say is on its way to the truth, but far from it. To even say "Christ" with all this history is ignoring the fact only the Greeks called the Messiah by Christ, which was another pagan name for Christos confused with Chrestos, a sun deity worshipped around the same days as the True Messiah.

But today so many Christians have no clue what they are reading, and to even hear from their mouth that the "Bible" is a perfect translation from the original is just stupid and ignorant. No such thing as a perfect translation, if its translated, its not perfect. Like was said, Constantine was the one in charge of making up the first Bible Canon which included more books that the current Bible Canon today. I cant get a definate number but at least 74, but now its 66. Why were some removed? And why are they "forbidden"? These are the questions that Christians deny, which is why I left the stupid religion. Its full of holes, lies and deceptions to keep the masses dumbed down and to not question authority. Its the perfect religion to bring in the NWO, shut up, dont ask questions and do as your told!

Religions are just man made systems to get people to follow a doctrine for power or popularity or control. No where in the original Greek and Hebrew texts and scrolls does it say the Messiah Yahuwshuwah or the Heavenly Father Yahuwah told us to follow a religion. Catholic religion is the basis of all the religions under the 'whore of babylon' with all her daughters aka Protestants, Islam, Masons, Illuminati and the others but not all of them. Who do you think comes to pay respect to the pope and kiss his hand? Nearly all the religions in the world! Then whose the leader of these religions, of course the Roman Catholic system at least 2000 years ago.

The only way out of this mess is to pray to our Heavenly Father and ask for guidance and truth through His son Yahuwshuwah the Messiah. The Messiah is Hebrew, not Greek nor English and the ancient languages of the world may have stemmed from a type of Ancient Hebrew where it all began. Do some more research, and dont bother with the dumbed down Christians who ignore the real things going on behind the scenes of the Scriptures. I for one believe the Messianic Scriptures, but not these latest translations. With all the watered down words and removed verses, why is there so many translations? Whats wrong with the one for the language? Do you need over 400 English translations? Seriously, if its the True Inspired word, and there is only 1 way to the truth and the life, whats with the many ways to get the truth? It seems there is some problem going on and its only getting worse.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Gnosticism actually has not in much common with Kabbalah as people think, so im always left bemused by people (mostly seclar scholars) attributing kabbalah to Gnosticism.

Granted, the one theme which is present in gnosticism before Kabbalah articulated it is the Lurianic concept of the "breaking of the vessels" and the fallen sparks in creation. But this doesnt mean Isaac Luria, a profound sage in the wisdom of Torah, Neviyim, Ketuvim, Talmud, Midrashim and the Hebrew/Aramac languages took this from Gnosticism. It is at most a coincidence in doctrine.

But the 10 sefirot? I hardly find the 10 aeons of gnosticism as being a paralell to this idea. And certainly thy were never as comprehensively or cogently presented as it is in the Kabbalah. Also, the Bahir dates to the time of Rabbi Akiva - 100 CE. The Sefer Yetzirah, a book which is more profound than any book of metaphysics ever composed, is by tradition attriubted to Abraham. But apparently redacted by Rabbi Akiba. So 100 CE. And the Zohar - the book of splendor, the fundamental book of Jewish mysticism is dated (despite some incorrect views from scholars who confuse isaac of accos statements as being proof that he believed Moshe of Lyons composed it. Funny enough, we never get to read the whole of his views because the last part of his testimony was destroyed...wonder why) to 200 CE to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.... So gnosticism is not the source of Jewish mysticism as these above books are contemporary to the gnostic teachings.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1

First off the 'Bible' isnt even the correct term, its the Scriptures. The term Bible comes from a deity named Byble in ancient times,

The base word means book or scroll, and is found in at least the following passages:



biblos (βιβλος - biblos)
Matt. 1:1

biblO (βιβλω - biblO)
Mk. 12:26
Lk. 3:4
Lk. 20:42
Acts 1:20
Acts 7:42
Php. 4:3
Rev. 20:15

biblous (βιβλους - biblous)
Acts 19:19

biblou (βιβλου - biblou)
Rev. 3:5



'Jesus' isnt even the correct name for the messiah, its only been around for 400 years, since the letter 'J' was invented. He was called Iesus in English. Before that the Greeks called him Iesous.

"ιησου" ("iEsou"-- suffix changes with part of speech) is in the NT numerous times, and like any other word its rendering in other languages is largely irrelevant. We can say "Jesus" as legitimately as we can say Plato or Sosthenes or Paul.

So far, these arguments display complete unfamiliarity with ancient languages and the rules of translation, and more likely a simple repeating of what is posted by others just as unfamiliar. There are articles available that debunk these popular but misguided claims as well as those that follow in your comment, and a simple internet search will prove valuable to any who want to go beyond these uninformed sites. The advice to do one's own thinking must surely include seeking out real experts in ancient languages and textual criticism, especially before one berates others for their alleged lack of knowledge.

edit on 17-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
The Bible was written to control the masses....with fear and punishment. I believe in Jesus....but not the Bible...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 



I am all for civility - but how come my posts get removed but this one calling me ignorant is allowed to stay and no infraction issued ?


Sir, the term "ignorant" means not learned on a particular issue or course of study. It has nothing to do with a person's ability to learn something. Every person alive is ignorant to something that another person is well learned in.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
About whether or not Jesus went to Eastern countries:

Jesus' hand gestures in many very old works of art seem to resemble mudras which is what Hindus and Buddhist use.

The Prithvi mudra (which is still used today by priests when making a blessing, made by touching the ring finger and thumb together to make a circle while extending the other fingers upward).

The Pran mudra (which is made by touching the thumb with the pinky and ring finger, and the index and middle finger are side by side and pointing upward).

The Anjali mudra which we all use to this day in prayer. This is the clasping of the open palms of both hands, placed near the heart, when we are in prayer. Jews don't pray this way, but Christians and the other 2 aforementioned faiths do.

As for the "secret teachings", ahem, Matthew 13:34-35:

34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:

“I will open my mouth in parables,

I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.


You're only depriving yourself if you don't look into those "secret teachings." They were there for those who were willing to hear...
edit on 17/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


The fact that most of the gnostic gospels arise 1000 years after the first new testament texts makes me believe that the gnostic gospels are the fakes & forgeries.

And most of the gnostic gospels actually support the content of earlier texts but portray them in a different light.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


S&F from me OP.

God never answered any of my prayers, I answered them for myself, sometimes, not even realizing that I had.

Good post OP, great post, actually!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


The fact that most of the gnostic gospels arise 1000 years after the first new testament texts makes me believe that the gnostic gospels are the fakes & forgeries.

And most of the gnostic gospels actually support the content of earlier texts but portray them in a different light.
They date around 50-300 CE.

If anything, they are older or about the same age as the "canonical" scripture.
edit on 17/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join