Religion and why this god person doesn't exist

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by Jim Scott
They wrote on papyrus, which is animal skin.

LOL.

Another one of those Christian Scholars that the Church trained so well !!!

Guess they forgot to tell them they knew about paper back then. Another one that needs to read more than one book.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

But were people talking about Jesus during the biblically reported time of Jesus's existence or 100 years after?

As one might take note, while the Jesus theme was popular with the lower classs common people. Jesus theme was tabo with the upper class religion folks.

Jesus had to leave the country. Most of his disciples were killed or crucified to shut them up.

There appeared to be a small underground group that kept up some of the Christian Church theme in Jerusalem being run by James.

But the history shows the Essenes were slowly driven away. Even the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem was run off became they taught a whole deeper story of religion and wanted to change from the old ways of Yahweh. You can find where the Essene Gate and the Eseene Quarter existed, but the gate was walled up and the Essene forced out.

Pretty much the Jesus treachings existed out of the country due to the resistance toward it being taught, so the Therapute in Egypt knew some and the regions of Renesse Le Chateau in Southern France kept up some.

Not until Rome needed a Peace seeking god did the theme for Jesus get into vague as being accepted and that was via Decree of the Emperor of Rome and the Church of Rome. That happened around 300 AD.

They spent too much time trying to make Jesus into god that lots of the original history for Jesus and the Essene was either lost or embellished beyond the truth.

I completely disagree with christianity but it's a bit extreme to just bluntly state that god doesn't exist. I believe in evolution, but let's be honest, the big bang theory is just as ridiculous of a concept as creationism.

Why couldn't it be that God used the big bang and evolution to create us?

That the Big bang is just how we perceive it being inside the container he created for us, but the process was initiated by a conscious force in a purposeful manner? Why couldnt it be via evolution is how he molded our species starting from single celled organisms which appears to us as billions of years but in fact for him is a small amount of time?

reply to post by MagnumOpus


You still didn't answer my question. I'm looking for one of two words as an answer, not 5 paragraphs. Before or after?

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

You still didn't answer my question. I'm looking for one of two words as an answer, not 5 paragraphs. Before or after?

You can ask a question with trying to force an answer for either before or after, but the answer is both occured.

It only speaks to how little you know the subject.

Jesus was spoken by the Romans, by the temple folks, by the people before.

Jesus was spoken about in the issues of the Disciples, Constatain afterwards.

You look for an answer that can't be answered with truth by selection of one or the other.

Thus, your game is up.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

You still didn't answer my question. I'm looking for one of two words as an answer, not 5 paragraphs. Before or after?

You can ask a question with trying to force an answer for either before or after, but the answer is both occured.

It only speaks to how little you know the subject.

Jesus was spoken by the Romans, by the temple folks, by the people before.

Jesus was spoken about in the issues of the Disciples, Constatain afterwards.

You look for an answer that can't be answered with truth by selection of one or the other.

Thus, your game is up.

I'm sorry, I don't know what game you are referring to. I'm not playing a game.

So you said Jesus was talked about before the bible was discovered. I'm assuming this is accurate, historical information.

So its settled then. Jesus really did exist.

What was the point of this thread? There is absolutely nothing of value in the topic post. One of the first posters were right. You literally provided no ... information. You also don't seem to know science very well. Science doesn't even dismiss God , Science tries to understand the world around us. So basically , you have no common sense or scientific reason to post this topic.

I love science , however , i ignore the Evolution theory simply because it has so many holes and doesnt make much sense to me. During Evolution. We just so happened to get lucky on this mutation , and that big bang , and the meteorite just so happened not to kill all living things , but we mutated again from the few bacteria left and got lucky that the rock the size of our moon missed us , but maybe the moon hit us? Nah. Couldnt have. Maybe we came from a Rock in Space and DNA mutated from that Rock .. blah blah blah. Creation makes a hell of a more sense. If life was that easy or lucky to make , we would be seeing a lot more of it.

How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to actually change the bulb, and the other to videotape the job so fundamentalists won’t claim that god did it.


This topic is a Rant.

reply to post by Jim Scott

I love this one. Have you compared the Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Isaiah in the present-day King James Version of the Bible? Virtually identical in every sense. So, where are these numerous changes? And you can expect that same accuracy for the rest of the Bible, my friend.

The scrolls are traditionally identified with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, though some recent interpretations have challenged this association and argue that the scrolls were penned by priests, Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: "Biblical" manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; "Apocryphal" or "Pseudepigraphical" manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, non-canonical psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and "Sectarian" manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism) like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher.
(snip)
The fragments span at least 800 texts that represent many diverse viewpoints, ranging from the beliefs of the Essenes to those of other sects.

www.crystalinks.com...
The Essenes believed in Reincarnation, do you? They saw God as a God of grace and mercy, using similar language found in the Hebrew Bible, not the cruel and jealous God of the OT. The beliefs ascribed to the Essenes were radically different from what Jesus taught in the NT, even though Jesus was one himself.....curious.

The Bible was written carefully in temperature/humidity controlled conditions by monks who were checked and cross-checked. They wrote on papyrus, which is animal skin.

You state this as a fact. So you were there. Tell me, where did you stash your time Machine? I love it when Christians state facts like they were there, in first person. Do you know how this makes you look?

A mission from Hong Kong found Noah's Ark.

Yeah, right. Didn't you get the memo? At least two seasoned archaeologists who have made numerous expeditions to Mount Ararat in search of Noah’s Ark are throwing cold water on this week’s claim the Old Testament vessel has finally been discovered, saying it’s a hoax involving wood hauled in from the Black Sea region. In 1993, CBS aired a documentary hailing the discovery of Noah's Ark, also on Mount Ararat. It turned out that "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark" was predicated largely on evidence provided by an actor who later acknowledged having made the whole thing up.

From my own thread, link in my sig:
Of all the books in the King James Bible, there isn't one handwritten original that is knwon to exist. We don't even have the first copies of the originals, what we do have, is copies of copies of copies of copies, and what people remember who read the texts. The writers in Ancient Times had a looser standard for accuracy in their writings, or copying texts. Sometimes they wrote in other, more famous authors' names. They would add, subtract, alter, or outright remove "historical" events/place names/dates in the texts as they, or their Masters saw fit. Sometimes, blatant fiction was mixed together with truth, (Mishmash) and some of the scribes wrote texts in the name of Church enemies, to discredit the writer entirely. Then the forged text could be used against them in later times, if need be. This in itself speaks of a hidden agenda.
And agenda of Control of a People, to keep from them the true knowledge that they themselves are God and Goddess.

Noah's Ark find was faked, says ex-colleague

reply to post by smithjustinb

Contrarily, if people didn't start talking about Jesus, until say, 100 years after the documented time of Jesus's death, then I would say that Christianity is probably undoubtedly a human-made control mechanism.

You see my point? If Jesus actually did exist, he would have, historically, been the word on the street in the Biblically reported time of Jesus's existence and all that hype would have then been passed down from generation to generation coming from people who actually witnessed Jesus firsthand.

However, if people didn't even know about Jesus until the Bible came out, then Jesus is a lie.

I have been saying that for years, but to hear the Christians tell it, the words of Jesus came from first hand accounts, and some even think Jesus himself wrote them. I would say, under Roman Occupation, the mere mention of a dissenter such as Jesus was supposed to be would be met with arrest. To the best of my knowledge, it was Romans who made the story up anyway.

I can tell you what the Christian Agenda is: They wish to keep humanity from Ascending, and from knowing who and what they really are.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Who do the Romans, under Constantine, find but the Prophet Jesus fits what they want politically. Jesus for the Romans became the replacement for Yahwah.

Respectively, wasn't Jesus really a ripoff of Mithra, the popular Roman God?

Originally posted by autowrench

Who do the Romans, under Constantine, find but the Prophet Jesus fits what they want politically. Jesus for the Romans became the replacement for Yahwah.

Respectively, wasn't Jesus really a ripoff of Mithra, the popular Roman God?

Yes, with the term "Mithras" being the Iran / Persian area term for "Nimrod"/ Sun god. I tend to use the Nimrod and Babylon terms first and foremost because of the Revelations and Jesus/Essene use of those terms.

Mithras would be correct for the Constaintine point of view. This is why we see these 4 groups of 3 persons in the DaVinci Last Supper because he is trying to point out the Sun Worship 4 seasons and 12 months theme, and Jesus is shown with the Sun Halo over the head. The Sun Cross theme.

In Constantine's area the term was more Mithras. And in each Mediterranean area there were other names for this same Sun god theme of Nimrod. Egypt had their own names, also, for the like gods theme.

Mithras does make a good study to find this is the Nimrod theme.

hope-of-israel.org...

Constantine and Rome wanted to round up all the old Mithras folks and so sheep dipped Jesus to look like the Sun god theme with Trinity issues. That blending entered many untruthful views for Jesus, which is a sore spot for Christianty as seen by other less corrupted religions.

Because of this, the issues for Jesus and Yahweh being connected with the Annunaki more or less got intentionally lost by the Church of Rome. But it remains with the Myrrh reverence theme, some with the Lord's Supper Boron theme, DaVinci's hint. The Catholic Church doesn't really want to explain to the world about this little Creator God theme much earlier in time, so they do the Nimrod is the Sun god theme.

Nimrod pretty much rebelled against the Annunaki being god theme, and make himself god, which was just as wrong. Jesus played along with Yahweh being the Father derived from the Annunaki theme, because that is the actual history derivation from Creator gods. So, Nimrod / Mythra theme ends up being the false god theme for Halot Babylon. Jesus god ends up being derived from much earlier Annunaki Father / Creator god theme.

And since the Catholic Church has been playing hide and go seek for the truth for a couple thousand years.

Since the Church is largely screwed up with explaining what god is, they try to plug in and merge Yahweh, Jesus, Nimrod themes.

Yahwah is the god / Father / Annunaki derivation.

Jesus is the interpreter of the Word that explains the Father and the false Babylon/Nimrod god.

Nimrod is the human god solar diety god, or false god. Also called Mithras.

And technically Yahwah and Annunaki is a false god concept also, but called Creater gods in their time and Jesus time.


It basically gets down to the issue that the Essene, The Therapute, and Jesus had things like the Book of Enoch and figured out what all that meant. Even the value of Myrrrh as a super healing agent which the Annunaki had a huge appreciation for also. So, Jesus and the Essene were into teaching the real histories as The Way and Jesus was schooled in the old Mystery School religion theme for Babylon and before to the times of Enoch.

It gets down to the uses of Myrrh was what saved Jesus life, but that was a huge connection with the theme of Creator gods and intervention of god to return to health. They corrupted the real story to make it more Mythra /Nimrod theme, and plugged Trinity into John's chapter to corrupt the truth.


What the organized church presents as Jesus is a totally screwed up mess and most a lie.


What would one expect from a bunch of pagan dumb-bells that thought the Earth was Flat, and all revolved around the Earth. Take a big hint, the Vatican is full of morons that can't tell the truth, even after it is obvious. imho It is all about the money, and when the big truth hits-----the vatican looks like a bunch of con men for religion.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
True atheists do not proselytize, and you wouldn't see them in a religion forum "fighting the heathen" while claiming that their belief that there is no God or gods is not a belief but a "lack of belief" by using flowery words to decieve themselves.

Does that go for true Christians too?

I love when Christians define Atheists.