jesus did exist, face it!

Originally posted by whirlwind
The bible also tells us about dinosaurs.

No it doesn't.
It has all sorts of mythical beasts in it - including UNICORNS.

Do you believe in unicorns, whirlwind ?

Originally posted by whirlwind
It tells us this world is billions of years old.

No it doesn't.
Indeed, many fundametalists say the Bible teaches the world is about 6000 years old.

Originally posted by whirlwind
It is not fictional.

So, you believe in talking snakes?

So, you believe the earth stopped rotating?

Originally posted by whirlwind
There is NO evolution, as far as one species becoming another. That is a theory, an incorrect theory.

It always amazes me how apologists bring this up whenever the historicity of Jesus is questioned.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with Jesus.

But somehow, apologists seem to think that denying the most succesful, most well-supported fact in biology supports their beliefs about Jesus.

Evolution is a fact.
We observe evolution.

Jesus is a myth.
We observe no historical evidence for him.


Iasion

Originally posted by Clearskies
Esoteric and Gnostic Jesus???Explain that to me in plain english...

It IS plain English !
Do you mean to say you don't know what these words mean?
And you don't know how to use a dictionary?
Do you mean to say you don't even know who the Gnostics were?

In other words - you don't even know the most basic background terms and facts of Christian history, and you don't know how to look them up either.

Originally posted by Clearskies
There are many references in the bible of extra, non-essential books.

What?

Originally posted by Clearskies
O.K., so you're saying that there's no evidence for christ who these people worshipped , whom the bible says were reviled and hated by Jews and Romans whom this secular ignoramus satirised, sounds like a connection to me!!!

What?
What "connection" ?

Originally posted by Clearskies
If this "obscure cult" being demonized is called christian, where do you think they got thier name from... ..CHRIST!!!.

So what?
There is a new religion called "Jedi Knights" formed in recent decades - does that mean Jedis are real?

Your argument is worthless - people name themselves after all sorts of stuff - the Heaven's Gate cult, who DIES for their beliefs - does that make Heaven's Gate real?

No.

Nor does the name "Christian" mean "Christ" was real - anyway, at least one Christian father claims they are named "Christians" because they are "christened" (anointed, rubbed, smeared) with oil - without once mentioning Jesus.

Originally posted by Clearskies
SAYS you.

Indeed.
It IS too late.
Do you have any argument, any evidence, any point?

Originally posted by Clearskies
How many times do the gospels not specifically contain the name Jesus Christ??? Does that mean they're talking about Newt Gingrich?

What do the Gospels have to do with Numenius?

Anyway -
the Gospels are anomymous works written by people from outside Palestine, who never met any Jesus, from long after the alleged events.

That is the view of modern NT scholars.

Originally posted by Clearskies
How reliable is the talmud...

Idiot.
My whole point was that the Talmud evidence for Jesus was UN-reliable.

Like all of it -
Late, suspect, forged, or not about Jesus....

None of it stands up to scrutiny.
None of it is contemporary.
None of it is by anyone who ever met any Jesus.

Originally posted by Clearskies

Many of the caesars after Jesus had such a hatred for anything contrary to them they would have tried to destroy any evidence of a Savior as well as the devotees!!!

Riiiight.
Now you claim the reason there is no evidence for Jesus is because Caesar destroyed it all?

So, you admit there is no evidence for Jesus?

But wait -
why did Caesar not destroy the Gospels and the epistles?
Which you say is "evidence".

What nonsense.


Iasion

Hello God, I have been looking for you everywhere.

Once upon a time I had faith, but that's a long sad story.



www.ukapologetics.net...

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Iasion

Originally posted by whirlwind ...The bible also tells us about dinosaurs.

No it doesn't...It has all sorts of mythical beasts in it - including UNICORNS....Do you believe in unicorns, whirlwind ?

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16.Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17.He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18.His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19.He is the chief of the ways of God; He That made him can make His sword to approach unto him.
20.Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
23.Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

That is a dinosaur. No, I don't believe in unicorns. They are in the bible but they were mistranslated and should be ox.

It tells us this world is billions of years old.

No it doesn't......Indeed, many fundametalists say the Bible teaches the world is about 6000 years old.

Many fundamentalists do. They are incorrect. The first scripture in the Bible tells us, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It didn't say when that was but science tells us it was billions of years. The beginning of this age didn't start until the last 1/2 of verse 2 - And the Spirit of God moved upon the face fo the waters. There are other scriptures that attest to that first age.

It is not fictional. (the Bible)

So, you believe in talking snakes?

The serpent in the Garden of Eden was not a snake. God teaches through parables, analogies, etc. The serpent was Satan and he was "more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made."

So, you believe the earth stopped rotating?

That is a difficult one for me. Many questions, actually most questions, I have ever had about the Bible are answered. That one is not. I will believe it because it states that it happened. I don't know how or why but one day it will be answered or explained. Time can be affected in many ways. Take for instance the tsunami. Three seconds were lost. Who knows?

There is NO evolution, as far as one species becoming another. That is a theory, an incorrect theory.

It always amazes me how apologists bring this up whenever the historicity of Jesus is questioned.....Evolution has NOTHING to do with Jesus. ...But somehow, apologists seem to think that denying the most succesful, most well-supported fact in biology supports their beliefs about Jesus....Evolution is a fact....We observe evolution.

Evolution has to do with God's Word. It is in direct contradition to His Word. Evolution is anything but successful. It is the religion of scientist. They believe that if they can prove it they can disprove God.

Jesus is a myth. .....We observe no historical evidence for him.

His story has been told since the begining of time. The original manuscripts have never changed since their beginning. The Word is locked in by the Massorah.

...Whirlwind

SIGH!!!

Whirlwind your ignorance is stunning.

How can you accept the notion that in the case of the serpent of Eden that God speaks in parables and still believe that the Bible is literally true? If God speaks in metaphor and parable in one case odds are God speaks in them in many more as well... Hence carrying that logic to its conclusion tells us that the Bible contains many metaphors and parables and since they are by necessity symbolic tales and myths, symbols as it were, then it simply is not possible to take it literally.

Evolution is not a religion. Evolution does not disprove the Bible. If you can accept the notion that the the Bible describes creation as happening over six days and that science tells us that it happened over billions of years; how can you then turn around and reject the notion that evolution is false when it could just as easily be describing how God's creatures became what they are?

Evolution does not describe one species turning into another like a dog turning into a cat let us say. Rather it describes however the process in which species adapt to changing circumstance and in the process eventually become another species... Darwin's famous study in finches of the Galapagos is the classic example. In it, it describes how the original finch population changed to adapt to the differing circumstances on each of the islands... sometimes the changes were as simple as a different shaped beak to open different types of nuts, they were still finches but they had changed enough to form distinct species of finch.

You can see this process in the transformation from a wolf to a poodle... the only difference is that what happened to the finches happened in the wild in response to different habitat, what happened between the wolf to the poodle, we did by choosing traits that we wanted and breeding for them. Other than that there is no difference. And one species did not become another like you claim, we still have wolves.... rather other species of dog were bred from them.

Its all very simple actually but probably far above your head based on your previous posts.

BTW I have read the Bible three times now and I have never come across a unicorn in it.

Deuteronomy 33:17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

17His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.


Numbers 23:22 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

22God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Psalm 29:6 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)


6He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Isaiah 34:7 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
7And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness


Job
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?’

Well this never crossed my mind,

The English word unicorn, which is derived from the Latin words meaning one horn, was used by the King James translators (and others) for the original Hebrew word of the Scriptures, pronounced reh-ame, which means a wild bull. The best-known "unicorn" of the animal world, at least in the modern era, is the rhinoceros - a very strong, single-horned animal that seems to fit the literal description of the Biblical unicorn (see below) as a powerful wild animal that was not easily domesticated (although it's quite likely that it was some other animal that existed at that time - the rhinoceros is used merely as an example to illustrate that powerful one-horned animals did, and do, exist). "Unicorn" is also used symbolically, the one "horn" of Joseph consisting of the two single, or independent, "horns" of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

www.keyway.ca...


[edit on 28-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]

And in my revised standard edition it refers to the animal as a wild bull.

That is a big problem with the Bible is that even if you go back to the original Aramaic to translate it, Aramaic like many ancient languages had no vowels, just accent marks and depending on where you place the accent marks determines the word, for example the passage in Isiaih about the Messiah being born of a virgin can also be translated as by a young girl or woman.

The fact is the Bible has been translated many different ways to push many different agenda's... for proof of that try reading the Jehovah's Witness translation. And, when you change wording and change emphisis you change meaning... another argument against a literal reading of it.

reply to post by grover

How can you accept the notion that in the case of the serpent of Eden that God speaks in parables and still believe that the Bible is literally true? If God speaks in metaphor and parable in one case odds are God speaks in them in many more as well... Hence carrying that logic to its conclusion tells us that the Bible contains many metaphors and parables and since they are by necessity symbolic tales and myths, symbols as it were, then it simply is not possible to take it literally.

He does speak, throughout the Bible, using parables, metaphors, idioms, etc. because not all are supposed to hear and understand.

Matt.13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10.And the disciples came, and said unto Him, "Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?"
11.He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12.For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13.Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

They are not myth and tales but deep lessons for us and should be taken literally - once you have eyes and ears to understand.

Evolution is not a religion. Evolution does not disprove the Bible. If you can accept the notion that the the Bible describes creation as happening over six days and that science tells us that it happened over billions of years; how can you then turn around and reject the notion that evolution is false when it could just as easily be describing how God's creatures became what they are?

You are not reading, with understanding, the Genesis narrative. Also, as stated in 2Peter3:8, a day with the Lord is as 1,000 days.

Evolution does not describe one species turning into another like a dog turning into a cat let us say. Rather it describes however the process in which species adapt to changing circumstance and in the process eventually become another species...

Perhaps you haven't seen the teaching tool evolutionist use. From a piece of pond scum they show it changing (evolving) into a fish, into a lizard, etc, all the way to an ape and eventually - MAN. That is what is taught in schools.

BTW I have read the Bible three times now and I have never come across a unicorn in it.

I see where this was answered by Stormdancer.

........Whirlwind

I had my post almost ready and when I went to topic review, I lost it!!!!

Originally posted by Iasion
It IS plain English !
Do you mean to say you don't know what these words mean?
And you don't know how to use a dictionary?
Do you mean to say you don't even know who the Gnostics were?

I don't have the time to research things that aren't important.
But, I did look them up,
Esoteric means "inner" spirituality, O.K. Where's the conflict?
Christian gnosticism means belief in an Abrahamic God, belief in the scriptures and self denial. Again, where's the conflict???

Originally posted by Clearskies
There are many references in the bible of extra, non-essential books.

Such as the book of Enoch and the book of Jasher.

]

Originally posted by Clearskies
O.K., so you're saying that there's no evidence for christ who these people worshipped , whom the bible says were reviled and hated by Jews and Romans whom this secular ignoramus satirised, sounds like a connection to me!!! [/quote

What?
What "connection" ?

A connection to Jesus.

Originally posted by Clearskies
If this "obscure cult" being demonized is called christian, where do you think they got thier name from... ..CHRIST!!!.

Nor does the name "Christian" mean "Christ" was real - anyway, at least one Christian father claims they are named "Christians" because they are "christened" (anointed, rubbed, smeared) with oil - without once mentioning Jesus

.
Even your Lucian, though ridiculing christian, alludes to Jesus!

Christus means "anointed one."Anointing people for God has been a practice since before the first temple until now. Our church does it when praying for people, It's a commandment.
There is no doubt historical writings have been manipulated and forged by the roman catholic church for it's own gain, but there is still ample evidence of early christianity and Christ.
Such as Hegesippus and others.

Originally posted by Clearskies
How many times do the gospels not specifically contain the name Jesus Christ??? Does that mean they're talking about Newt Gingrich?

What do the Gospels have to do with Numenius?

Though not completely inline with Judeo-Christian teaching Numenius wrote of the human body as a prison. [2] Numenius according to Professor Michael Wagner showed gnostic tendencies in viewing matter as coeval with God.[3]
You're the one who brought him up, I'm just saying many times the name Jesus is not even named in the bible, We know who it's refering to.

Anyway -
the Gospels are anomymous works written by people from outside Palestine, who never met any Jesus, from long after the alleged events.

That is the view of modern NT scholars.

There is Paul, Peter,

Originally posted by Clearskies
How reliable is the talmud...

Idiot.
My whole point was that the Talmud evidence for Jesus was UN-reliable.

Like all of it -
Late, suspect, forged, or not about Jesus....

None of it stands up to scrutiny.
None of it is contemporary.
None of it is by anyone who ever met any Jesus.

Originally posted by Clearskies

Many of the caesars after Jesus had such a hatred for anything contrary to them they would have tried to destroy any evidence of a Savior as well as the devotees!!!

Riiiight.
Now you claim the reason there is no evidence for Jesus is because Caesar destroyed it all?

So, you admit there is no evidence for Jesus?

But wait -
why did Caesar not destroy the Gospels and the epistles?
Which you say is "evidence".

What nonsense.


Iasion

reply to post by grover

And in my revised standard edition it refers to the animal as a wild bull....That is a big problem with the Bible is that even if you go back to the original Aramaic to translate it, Aramaic like many ancient languages had no vowels, just accent marks and depending on where you place the accent marks determines the word, for example the passage in Isiaih about the Messiah being born of a virgin can also be translated as by a young girl or woman.

The farther away from the original the more mistakes will occur, some purposely, some not. I don't have a gift for languages so my best tool is a Strong's Concordance. That is the reason I stay with a KJV. The best of those is the Companion Bible, E.W. Bullinger. It is a standard KJV but has footnotes by Bullinger who was the only Christian allowed to edit the Massorah for Ginsberg.

You're correct in that the example you noted about the Messiah being born of a virgin can be translated as a young girl. But you must ask yourself what kind of a sign would that be? Everyone is born of a woman, or a girl - that would not be a sign.

Is.7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

There are differences in how the word virgin is used throughout the Bible:
The Heb. for virgin (in our technical sense is bethulah, and occurs 50 times. There is also ha-almah, which occurs 7 times (#7 means spiritual perfection). It shows that while every Bethulah is indeed an Almah, yet not every Almah is a Bethulah. As a sign to Ahaz (Is.14:10) this damsel was an almah. - Bullinger

Mary was a virgin, in the sense as we now know it to mean. An interesting occurance here is the #7. As stated, it means spiritual perfection and it is speaking about Mary. Also note where it is given in the Bible -Is.7:14 ( 7, 7 + 7 = 14 - 7:14) There are many numeric occurances throughout the Bible that show the Divine hand of God, too many to be mere coincidences.

The fact is the Bible has been translated many different ways to push many different agenda's... for proof of that try reading the Jehovah's Witness translation. And, when you change wording and change emphisis you change meaning... another argument against a literal reading of it.

Stay away from them and their agendas. Stay with the KJV and the Strong's Concordance for the clearest interpretation, unless you speak Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and have the manuscripts. The KJV does have mistranslations but it is the best.

........Whirlwind

reply to post by open mind


Don't think so...

Well you have movies like Zeitgeist telling people half-truths about Jesus Christ which equal a whole lie in the end.

I agreed with some of the points on Jesus but had I not done previous research on this topic I would have believed it all, these are the area's that they are correct.

First, Jesus was not borm on Dec. 25, they are right it is an ancient winter solitice date that got transfered from previous pagan beliefs like they said.

Second, the cross is an ancient symbol also pulled from pagan beliefs, again they are correct.

Third, Christianity began to really leave the true path from the council of Nicaea 325 AD, again they are correct.

Where they are so wrong, Jesus Christ did really exist, and as he predicted many of his followers would turn apostate, as too the true path, shown by their evil works, they prove what they really are. Actions show what a person really is and who's side they are on. Greedy, selfish chronically immmoral people that say they are christians are false christians who Jesus condemmed very strongly.

See Matthew 25 31-46 for what Jesus said

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


Also Matthew 7 15-23

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

To all you hardcore believers who dont KNOW.

Jesus and the other God-men are personifications of the SUN. Why is this too hard to comprehend? In case you never knew there are other cultures with a Jesus figure, one who walked on water and performed miracles, in fact everything Jesus did, these other guys did, and I will post these other guys comparisons later.

The point is, if Jesus is so unique and the world (ahem) PLANET .. is only 6000 years old.. somebody somewhere is lying, and its not likely to be those older cultures or our scientific way of dating the earth. Or do you believe carbon dating and forensic science is a load of rubbish?


The reason why all these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula (the "Mythos," as mentioned above) revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.

For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th. This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th. The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

* The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
* In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
* The sun is the "Light of the World."
* The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
* The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
* The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
* The sun "walks on water."
* The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
* The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
* The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
* The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.

Now if all that flys in one ear and out the other, oh well, BeLIEve what you want, its YOUR FREE WILL that your God gave you to determine, to seek knowledge, to KNOW or beLIEve in blind faith of men? oh but then again see that 'God' wants you to beLIEve? he never did want you to KNOW anything, he likes Confusion and Chaos, Lord of misrule. I dont fancy being immortal in the flesh.. who wants to LIVE forever? EVIL

God is the the Alpha and Omega? the beginning and the end.. so ''God'' - IS - TIME? Omega is the Greek symbol that is around Washington on the dollar bill.. the same symbol that is also both sides of the Basilica of the Vatican in Rome. With the big phallic Egyptian time OBELISK.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Sekhemet]

Originally posted by Iasion
In other words - you don't even know the most basic background terms and facts of Christian history, and you don't know how to look them up either.

I don't have time for studying frivolous religiosity.
But, I made it a point to look these terms up.
Apparently esoteric means "inner spirituality" and gnosticism in that context means a belief in the Abrahamic God, the scriptures and self-denial.
I don't see any conflict...
How could modern day people study early christian writers and try to "label" them without any evidence?

Originally posted by Clearskies
There are many references in the bible of extra, non-essential books.

What?

O.K., the books of Enoch and Jasher.

What?
What "connection" ?

A connection between these believers and Jesus.

Nor does the name "Christian" mean "Christ" was real - anyway, at least one Christian father claims they are named "Christians" because they are "christened" (anointed, rubbed, smeared) with oil - without once mentioning Jesus.

Anointing with oil is a very old practice. The Name Christ means "the anointed one".
God said of Jesus, "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

The bible commands us to call for the elders to anoint the sick and pray for them.

What do the Gospels have to do with Numenius?

You brought up Numenius saying he never actually said the name Jesus in his writings. I was pointing out that many of the scriptures themselves never actually include the name Jesus, but we generally know who they are refering to.


[qoute]Riiiight.
Now you claim the reason there is no evidence for Jesus is because Caesar destroyed it all?
Quite possibly. Most caesars were power-hungry nuts.

So, you admit there is no evidence for Jesus?

There is plenty of evidence, but more importantly, a personal relationship with him.

But wait -
why did Caesar not destroy the Gospels and the epistles?
Which you say is "evidence".

The disciples had been commanded by Jesus to go into all the world carrying the gospel.The scriptures went with them...
Everyone was warned about the Romans destroying Jerusalem, and many escaped.

Clearskies

Originally posted by Sekhemet
To all you hardcore believers who dont KNOW.

Jesus and the other God-men are personifications of the SUN. Why is this too hard to comprehend? In case you never knew there are other cultures with a Jesus figure, one who walked on water and performed miracles, in fact everything Jesus did, these other guys did, and I will post these other guys comparisons later.

The point is, if Jesus is so unique and the world (ahem) PLANET .. is only 6000 years old.. somebody somewhere is lying, and its not likely to be those older cultures or our scientific way of dating the earth. Or do you believe carbon dating and forensic science is a load of rubbish?


The reason why all these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula (the "Mythos," as mentioned above) revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.

For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th. This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th. The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

* The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
* In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
* The sun is the "Light of the World."
* The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
* The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
* The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
* The sun "walks on water."
* The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
* The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
* The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
* The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.

Now if all that flys in one ear and out the other, oh well, BeLIEve what you want, its YOUR FREE WILL that your God gave you to determine, to seek knowledge, to KNOW or beLIEve in blind faith of men? oh but then again see that 'God' wants you to beLIEve? he never did want you to KNOW anything, he likes Confusion and Chaos, Lord of misrule. I dont fancy being immortal in the flesh.. who wants to LIVE forever? EVIL

God is the the Alpha and Omega? the beginning and the end.. so ''God'' - IS - TIME? Omega is the Greek symbol that is around Washington on the dollar bill.. the same symbol that is also both sides of the Basilica of the Vatican in Rome. With the big phallic Egyptian time OBELISK.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Sekhemet]

Sekhemet,
please go to this site and read it.The Two Babylons
Written in 1853, it covers much of what you're refering to.

Hehehe. lol. Ok Im going to read it.

Originally posted by whirlwind
He does speak, throughout the Bible, using parables, metaphors, idioms, etc. because not all are supposed to hear and understand.

You are not reading, with understanding, the Genesis narrative. Also, as stated in 2Peter3:8, a day with the Lord is as 1,000 days.

Evolution does not describe one species turning into another like a dog turning into a cat let us say. Rather it describes however the process in which species adapt to changing circumstance and in the process eventually become another species...

Perhaps you haven't seen the teaching tool evolutionist use. From a piece of pond scum they show it changing (evolving) into a fish, into a lizard, etc, all the way to an ape and eventually - MAN. That is what is taught in schools.

I just fricking love it when these people insist that if you do not agree with THEIR intrepertation of spiritual and religious matters it is inevitably you who lacks in understanding and that they are always right.

How arrogant, self serving and ignorant.

Evolution is an incremental process.... that chart you cite is a gross simplification. Evolution is very clealy described and is one of the very very few scientific theories with overwhelming evidence in its favor.... that is if you haven't slapped on your blinders or are so ignorant of science that you would prefer to believe some self important ass of a preacher trying to make a buck off of you.

Perhaps it is you whirlwind who lacks understanding.

reply to post by grover

Evolution is an incremental process.... that chart you cite is a gross simplification. Evolution is very clealy described and is one of the very very few scientific theories with overwhelming evidence in its favor.... that is if you haven't slapped on your blinders or are so ignorant of science that you would prefer to believe some self important ass of a preacher trying to make a buck off of you.

Why do you assume someone "makes a buck off of me"?

The oversimplified chart is one used to teach children and others about how evolution happened. If you don't approve of it you need to take it up with evolutionist. There is no overwhelming evidence about evolution. You take the beak of a bird changing to mean we evolve into other creatures. That is adaption. We, everything living, adapts to their surroundings - we do not evolve into something else as evolutionist suggest (actually, they don't suggest, they state it as fact).

I don't have blinders on. I accepted evolution easily before because it was taught to me by teachers I respected. When the blinders came off I can see that it was a lie. Humans are as God made us, in His image.

Perhaps it is you whirlwind who lacks understanding.

Perhaps, perhaps not. One day we'll see.