Wanna Make A Few Bucks? Collect Your Cash Reward If...

page: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


But are we really trying to prove a negative here? This man is offering his evidence, like any attorney or scientist might. The question isn't does God or Jesus exist. But rather do this mans claims hold water under scrutiny? Or do they spring a leak when the light of day hits them?

I see what you're saying, and still agree with your premise. But I don't think it applies in this particular instance unless his sourcing is a double edged sword.



edit on 4/22/2012 by Klassified because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Seed76
 


Thanks Seed, I'm going to bookmark that. Looks interesting.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I'd like to direct the OP to read THIS LINK HERE it should shed
some light on the topic at hand for him. It describes in far better detail than I could without spending a month or three researching just how ridiculous this theory is.

Also I'd like to say good luck in trying to claim the prize for proving them wrong. The entire pdf is nothing but suppositions and assertions that are so wildly ridiculous and historically implausible as to make the whole thing one big joke.

OR to put it more simply .... what a freaking waste of time I want my two hours back!



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
if it was irrelevant then why did you mention it and expound upon it in the first paragraphs setting up your claims?
It is YOUR strawman, not mine. Funny how you want to spin it when I addressed what you said. I didn't use it to set anything up, you did.
I will make it simple for you.
There is no accountability to government from religion based upon the 1'st amendment.
This is your strawman arg, not mine.
The tax exempot status is a red herring.
Government has imposed itself, not the other way around.
Go and do your due diligence before you make crazy arguments.
I dismantled you instantly and now you want to change the topic you created.
If you didn't meant to state it as evidence for your claims you should not have made the statement in support of it.
Again, I didn't use the arg, you did!
If it's a shallow arg, which it is, it is a shallow hypothesis.
But as you said, you are still looking at it so how could you know?
Or are you just waiting for cheerleaders?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


If income tax is illegal, I hope you don't use ANY services that are provided by the Government's collection of this tax.

Of course, the minute you use a road, you're argument is null and void.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


Thanks Rogue, This link was posted on page one. I haven't gone through it all yet. But I have bookmarked it for later reading. Thanks for the input though.

Hey, we've all wasted some time chasing good and bad research. It comes with the territory.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
reply to post by manna2
 


If income tax is illegal, I hope you don't use ANY services that are provided by the Government's collection of this tax.

Of course, the minute you use a road, you're argument is null and void.


If you want me to pay attention to your opinion, address the statement I made and not one you made up.
"Congress shall make NO law respecting religion of the free exercise thereof."
An education isn't what it used to be now is it?
And for the record, taxation without representation and taxing your income and even taxing it twice is a misappropriation of the intent of tax in the first place.
And since you seem to be a tx expert. what of the myriad of hundreds upon hundreds of taxes pay for the roads you used for example and how does that apply to the 1'st amendment and my point about religious liberty?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Star and Flag, Klassified! Good posting. I too have been delving into this, I came onto the Pisos while researching Julius Caesar. I was lokoking into his family ties, and low and behold, he was married to a Piso!

Julius Caesar marries Calpurnia Piso.

Julius Caesar married Calpurnia Piso in 59 BCE. The marriage was made to cement the famous triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. (Pompey married Caesar's daughter Julia.) Calpurnia's father was a close friend of Crassus. In reality, the marriage may have had another purpose: To protect Pontus, the Piso homeland, by including the Piso family in the aristocracy of Rome. When Crassus died in battle in 52 BCE, evidently Caesar no longer felt he needed to honor the peace with the Pisos. He defeated Pontus at Zela in 47. Apparently this defeat, and Caesar's bragging about how easy it was, greatly angered the Pisos. Caesar wrote the famous words "veni vidi vici" (I came. I saw. I conquered) in a letter from Pontus to Rome after his victory there.

source: The True Authorship of the New Testament

For the member who said there was more than one author? Of course there were.....here is the authors:
'THE PISO FAMILY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'
This all ties together into what is beginning to look like the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the masses, a massive conspiracy that reaches across, and around the world. At lease some of us ate attempting to uncover these secrets, I am certain Christendom would pay, or do most anything to keep hidden what is hidden.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
www.jewishanswers.org...




Arius Calpurnius Piso and Scripture I’ve recently been reading about a person named “Arius Calpurnius Piso”. Apparently, this person, and members of his family, were responsible for creating the “New Testament”. Although I’m not particularly bothered by that, I am bothered by the contention that he is also responsible for writing certain passages of the Prophets, as well as the book of Esther. What is your opinion of all this? Throughout the ages there have been many critics of the bible who have asserted many things about its authorship.There are two types of biblical criticism – lower criticism, also known as textual criticism, looks at the differences in the available manuscripts to determine what is most likely the correct text for a given passage. The other type of biblical criticism, known as higher criticism, looks at the source of the text, the environment in which the given text was constructed, cultural context, and a few other factors. In general, with the exception of the canonical approach, higher criticism usually seeks to prove that the bible could not have been written by whom, and when, it has been traditionally accepted as having been authored. Many biblical scholars of religious origin, both Jewish and Christian, feel that the Bible, specifically the Jewish Scriptures or Tanach, have stood up to higher criticism; they have been proven to have been authored by those to whom we have asserted, and in the times that we claimed. The Jewish Scriptures were canonized several hundred years before the New Testament and the destruction of the Temple. The common date given is around 300 BCE. Therefore, it is impossible for it (or any part of it) to have been written by Piso, especially if Piso is assumed to be Josephus, who lived between 37 CE and 100 CE. Concerning the authorship of the New Testament, while Josephus certainly did live at the correct time, there is ample evidence that the New Testament was not authored by one person, but by several people. While the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are believed to have been written from Matthew’s notes (called the Q document), the style and quality of the writings are still different enough to be attributed to different writers (even though the original source notes may be the same). In short, there is no evidence that the New Testament, nor portions of the Tanach, were authored by Piso, regardless of his actual identity.

.

boom goes the mic
edit on 22-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


I'm pretty sure income taxes are not used to build roads. State taxes, property taxes, and possibly some others are used as funding. Income taxes go more for things like defense (offense?) and payments on debt.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I recently watched this documentary. It was pretty interesting. It details how the Gospel According to Mark parallels the work of Homer and that it was a deliberate work of fiction. The other books of the new testament copy Mark's and attempt to improve upon it (they all came later). Anyway, there could be something in there to help disprove (or prove?) the mans theory.

Excavating The Empty Tomb



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Now wait a minute here.
You get a bthread 404'd with this topic so you send a msg to klassified to make this thread on a topic he just learned about from you, one he has yet to research, and you come on here pretending to support him?
I call fraud!
Of course you s and f. It's your topic!
Could you be more incredulous and insincere?
It's a ridiculous assertion using history to cloud facts to spin an incredulous assumption.
So what was the reason for your thread being 404'd?



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
In my personal opinion:

You could work the sequence of events backwards. You find all the usage of numbers in the New Testament, and then factor them all out , and of course you will find sets of numbers that through some manipulation will produce the same results and patterns will emerge, as they will by analyzing any random number sequence.

Then, you build a story that backs up and exemplifies the specific patterns you have found, thus falsely eluding that the numbers are 'codes' that prove your fictitious story has proofs.

It's called stuffing the crap back into the horse.

It's one big horse, and a hell of a pile of crap.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I could perhaps prove that there are other valid interpretations to the proof that has been collected by the author of the book. I could perhaps provide research that shows an alternate and equally likely course of events that led to the authorship of the New Testament.

But prove him wrong? No. Because one cannot prove a negative.

Further, this fellow lived in the first century A.D. Good for the skeptics. But then there's these other skeptic folks over here that point out even Biblical scholars have to admit the oldest known versions of the Gospels didn't appear until mid to late 2nd century. So which is it?

A simpler way to bring down Christianity is to point out that the God of the Bible is clearly a schizophrenic, so trying to please Him/Her/It/They is rather a futile effort.
edit on 23-4-2012 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


The reason for his thread being 404'd is not what this thread is about. And there's no secret conspiracy as to why he's here either. I invited his input.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


A different perspective. I like it. And you could very well be right. Some folks are desperate I'm sure to be the one to prove the new testament is a deliberate hoax from start to finish.

I will most likely pay little attention to his coding theory to start with. I'm more interested as to how accurate his history is. Which I'm sure will be tough enough all by itself.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 




But prove him wrong? No. Because one cannot prove a negative.

I keep hearing this. I don't think this is a matter of proving a negative. It's a matter of whether his claims can be verified as true without making a leap of faith.



A simpler way to bring down Christianity is to point out that the God of the Bible is clearly a schizophrenic, so trying to please Him/Her/It/They is rather a futile effort.

You may have a point here.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by autowrench
 


Now wait a minute here.
You get a bthread 404'd with this topic so you send a msg to klassified to make this thread on a topic he just learned about from you, one he has yet to research, and you come on here pretending to support him?
I call fraud!
Of course you s and f. It's your topic!
Could you be more incredulous and insincere?
It's a ridiculous assertion using history to cloud facts to spin an incredulous assumption.
So what was the reason for your thread being 404'd?

I have posted many times about the Pisos and the NT, look me up if you doubt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is not my Topic, or my research, the topic belongs to the whole world, those who wish to know, that is. Until yesterday, I was unaware of the book, all I have is some documentation and history books, and web links that I have posted.

An oversight on my part, I believe, involving external website tags.
I have rewritten the entire thread, with totally newly discovered information, and will be posting in in a few minutes time. Stay tuned.

Lastly, I believe I can reply, star, and flag anyone, in fact, have I not flagged and starred you before?



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by manna2
 


The reason for his thread being 404'd is not what this thread is about. And there's no secret conspiracy as to why he's here either. I invited his input.

Thank you. It seems some think we two are in cahoots, Klassified? Well, they say people know you by your friends.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I guess you cannot make a blind pig see





top topics
 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum