The New Testament: A Fourth Century Fabrication. The 7 Signs of a Christian Charlatan

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Secondly the article I have hyperlinked in the OP ( www.bibliotecapleyades.net... ), which is a summary of Tony Busby's book, "The Forged Origins of the New Testament" merely claims that the New Testament was essentially a syncretic (a mixture of various pre-existing sources) combination of what was considered to be the best of "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518)." It does not suggest that the New Testament was a completely original document, but rather based on many previous myths, legends and tales of Saviour gods and miracle workers (stage magicians).

There is a nice point by point refutation of Busby here -- though I would have tossed the thing back into the remainder bin when I'd have seen this on the cover:

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." - Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

Someone who doesn't know that this is a quote from a satirical play is hardly a person to be taken seriously. And yet Busby takes the fictional words written by a Protestant playwright as being true.

Again, you are making claims that are not supported by historical evidence, and citing sources that are so laughingly wrong that only someone whose views are so biased that they simply cannot see the fallacy. I, too, find it ironic that you prance around, decrying the "hypnotism" of religion, yet it is you who dismisses factual evidence in favour of lame conspiracy theories.

The fact that there may have been someone called Jesus, mooching around Palestine at that time is as relevant finding someone called harry potter mooching around the UK at this time

the story here is the alleged creator of the universe somehow fertilised a Jewish teenage girl -with himself-, got born in a cow trough and then from there wandered around pulling rabbits out of hats and similar and telling everybody “wouldn’t it be good if everybody was nice to each other” then at some point he got nailed to some 2 by 4’s by some bad tempered Italians

For me, the fact that you guys are even arguing over who wrote what and when (as interesting as it all is) is just more proof that it never happened

if the alleged creator of the universe did show up my guess is he would poof himself into existence, his poop would be pure neutronium and there would be strange time vortexes left over from where he had picked his nose – there would in short be no doubt that he had been here and pointless debates about who wrote what text when would be…. pointless

Now a question
Suppose a computer programmer wrote a program and on running it for the first time he found it didn’t function as he had designed it
Should he

A – stop the program and fix any bugs he can find and repeat this process till the program runs as he desires
B – find a way to torture copies of the program for ever and ever and as a last resort have himself nailed to some wood to see if that will fix the problem?

If it wasn’t for the violent methods used to inflict it on the rest of the world I would think christianity was some Roman emperors version of “pull my finger”

Originally posted by Lucifer777
The New Testament: A Fabrication, created for Social Control. The Conclusions of Historical and Textual Studies of the New Testament.

I must disagree. Critical New Testament Scholars believe that 6 of Paul the Apostles epistles are genuine and accurate.

Originally posted by racasan
Now a question
Suppose a computer programmer wrote a program and on running it for the first time he found it didn’t function as he had designed it
Should he

A – stop the program and fix any bugs he can find and repeat this process till the program runs as he desires
B – find a way to torture copies of the program for ever and ever and as a last resort have himself nailed to some wood to see if that will fix the problem?

As a computer programmer, I can say that Answer B is not out of the question at times.

We are functioning as designed -- the fact that we DO make terrible decisions doesn't mean that we can't make good ones. You suggest that God should have shut things down, turned everyone into mindless zombies who performed whatever marionette act was appropriate, and called it "good".

I call it "good" when we treat each other decently because we want to, not because we've been forced to.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

Ahh, crowley and the Kabbalah...

Interesting

Kinda sorta... but as you read this guys writings you realize he's the furthest thing from Crowley...

"the world of Magic is a mirror, wherein who sees muck is muck" - Aleister Crowley

reply to post by Lucifer777


Brilliant thread. That picture of the Bible with the warning sticker tells it like it is. About 15 years ago I studied with the Jehovah's witnesses for a year. I only went along because my then boyfriend got sucked in and I thought I'd better go along to see what it was all about before I judged it unfairly. I got quite drawn into it, and for those of you who have never studied with them I can tell you that out of all Christians, they follow the Bible 100% to the letter. It is probably the purest form of Christianity out there as everyone takes everything in the Bible completely literally. So I got a first hand experience of Christian teachings in their unadulterated, fundamentalist form - none of the watered down , semi-metaphorical stuff . The more I learned about Chsitianity in this raw, literal form, the more disturbed I became and eventually I began asking many questions. I set about reading the Bible from cover to cover and it was a total shock to my system to realize what a dark and horrible being this Jehovah was. I concluded the very same things that the sticker on the picture of the bible you posted and I quickly left the cult, disgusted. I'm glad I went through that year of study though as it truly opened my eyes.

reply to post by Lucifer777


We had better hope it's true. I know all these things about women and homosexuals may seem like injustices, but what world would you rather live in, the one we live in now, or the one we had when Christianity was dominant. Are we better off now? (Lol). Maybe you prefer the Bohemian grovers, with their black robes, worshipping an owl. Or the materialists, in which case there's no reason not to kill, rape and do whatever. Oh I see, your screen name is "Lucifer".

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Secondly the article I have hyperlinked in the OP ( www.bibliotecapleyades.net... ), which is a summary of Tony Busby's book, "The Forged Origins of the New Testament" merely claims that the New Testament was essentially a syncretic (a mixture of various pre-existing sources) combination of what was considered to be the best of "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518)." It does not suggest that the New Testament was a completely original document, but rather based on many previous myths, legends and tales of Saviour gods and miracle workers (stage magicians).

There is a nice point by point refutation of Busby here --

Well you obviously have not read the essay by Busby which you are responding to, since the site above does not deal with the points made in that essay.

though I would have tossed the thing back into the remainder bin when I'd have seen this on the cover:

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." - Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

Yes of of course you would; that is quite to be expected from a Christian; anything critical of your irrational, ahistorical fabricated faith should simply be binned.

Someone who doesn't know that this is a quote from a satirical play is hardly a person to be taken seriously. And yet Busby takes the fictional words written by a Protestant playwright as being true.

Again, you are making claims that are not supported by historical evidence, and citing sources that are so laughingly wrong that only someone whose views are so biased that they simply cannot see the fallacy. I, too, find it ironic that you prance around, decrying the "hypnotism" of religion, yet it is you who dismisses factual evidence in favour of lame conspiracy theories.

It is you that is simply offering a lame conspiracy theory which is not supported by historical evidence.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

It was Pope Leo X who made the most infamous and damaging statement about Christianity in the history of the Church. His declaration revealed to the world papal knowledge of the Vatican's false presentation of Jesus Christ and unashamedly exposed the puerile nature of the Christian religion. At a lavish Good Friday banquet in the Vatican in 1514, and in the company of "seven intimates" (Annales Ecclesiastici, Caesar Baronius, Folio Antwerp, 1597, tome 14), Leo made an amazing announcement that the Church has since tried hard to invalidate.



Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted:

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors."



The pope's pronouncement is recorded in the diaries and records of both Pietro Cardinal Bembo (Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, 1842 reprint) and Paolo Cardinal Giovio (De Vita Leonis Decimi..., op. cit.), two associates who were witnesses to it.


Caesar (Cardinal) Baronius (1538-1607) was Vatican librarian for seven years and wrote a 12-volume history of the Church, known as Annales Ecclesiastici. He was the Church's most outstanding historian (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, 1976, ii, p. 105) and his records provide vital inside information for anybody studying the rich depth of falsification in Christianity.



Cardinal Baronius, who turned down two offers to become pope in 1605, added the following comments about Pope Leo's declaration:

"The Pontiff has been accused of atheism, for he denied God and called Christ, in front of cardinals Pietro Bembo, Jovius and Iacopo Sadoleto and other intimates, 'a fable' ... it must be corrected".
(Annales Ecclesiastici, op. cit., tomes viii and xi)

In an early edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (Pecci ed., iii, pp. 312-314, passim), the Church devoted two-and-half pages in an attempt to nullify the most destructive statement ever made by the head of Christianity. It based the essence of its argument on the assumption that what the pope meant by "profitable" was "gainful", and "fable" was intended to mean "tradition".



Hence, confused Catholic theologians argued that what the pope really meant was,

"How well Christians have gained from this wonderful tradition of Christ".

But that isn't what he said.


It is from Christianity's own records that Pope Leo's statement became known to the world. In his diaries, Cardinal Bembo, the Pope's secretary for seven years, added that Leo:

"...was known to disbelieve Christianity itself. He advanced contrary to the faith and that in condemning the Gospel, therefore he must be a heretic; he was guilty of sodomy with his chamberlains; was addicted to pleasure, luxury, idleness, ambition, unchastity and sensuality; and spent his whole days in the company of musicians and buffoons. His Infallibility's drunkenness was proverbial, he practiced incontinency as well as inebriation, and the effects of his crimes shattered the people's constitution."
(Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, ibid.)

On behalf of the Church, Cardinal Baronius officially defended Pope Leo's declaration, saying it was "an invention of his corroded mind" (Annales Ecclesiastici, op. cit., tome iv), but in applauding the pope's tyrannical conduct supported the essence of his testimony on the grounds of the infallibility of the Church of Rome:

"Of his wicked miscarriages, we, having had before a careful deliberation with our brethren and the Holy Council, and many others, and although he was unworthy to hold the place of St Peter on Earth, Pope Leo the Great [440-461] originally determined that the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor.

[see Catholic Encyclopedia, i, pp. 289, 294, passim]



In regard to the keys, as Vicar of Christ he rendered himself to put forth this knowledge truly; and all do assent to it, so that none dissent who does not fall from the Church; the infamy of his testimonial and conduct is readily pardoned and forgotten."
(Annales Ecclesiastici, ibid.)

Later, John Bale (1495-1563) seized upon Pope Leo's confession and the subsequent Vatican admission that the pope had spoken the truth about the "fable of Christ" and "put forward this knowledge truly" (Annales Ecclesiastici, ibid.). Bale was an Englishman who had earlier joined the Carmelites but abandoned the order after the Inquisition slaughtered his family (Of the Five Plagues of the Church [originally titled The Five Wounds of the Church], Count Antonio Rosmini [Catholic priest and papal adviser], 1848, English trans. by Prof. David L. Wilhelm, Russell Square Publishing, London, 1889).



He became a playwright and in 1538 developed lampooning pantomimes to mock the pretended godliness of the Catholic Church and "parodied its rites and customs on stage" (The Complete Plays of John Bale, ed. Peter Happé, Boydell & Brewer, Cambridge, 1985).



After the public disclosure of the hollow nature of Christianity, "people were rejoicing that the papacy and the Church had come to an end" (Of the Five Plagues of the Church, op. cit.), but later Christian historians acrimoniously referred to the popular theatrical production as "that abominable satire", dishonestly claiming that it was the origin of Pope Leo's frank admission (De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disciplina, Bishop Louis Dupin [Catholic historian], Paris folio, 1686).

Simply because the playwright Joh Bale used Leo X's famous statement, does not negate all the historical evidence that this statement was made by Leo X. I do notice that the Christian www.thedevineevidence.com... site which you linked offers this conspiracy theory, that the remark was given originally by the playwright Bale, and gives the online Catholic Encyclopedia www.newadvent.org... as the source of this; that the Catholic encyclopedia simply repeats this conspiracy theory is entirely unsurprising.

Leo X was one of the most corrupt Popes in the history of the Vatican and even the Catholic encycopedia give the opinion that Leo X's corruption was the central cause of the Reformation.

The most important occurrence of Leo's pontificate and that of gravest consequence to the Church was the Reformation, which began in 1517. ....... The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen

www.newadvent.org...

However his extreme corruption does not stop Chistian propatgandists from praising him:

Modern churchmen, however praise Leo as "a person of moral life and sincerely religious" (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross, 1963, 2nd ed., p. 799; The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, Zondervan, 1974, p. 591), adding that his pious qualities were responsible for his unanimous election by the cardinals.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Lux

More on Leo X (formerly named Pope Julius II prior to his name change)

From: www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


Christian historians writhe when they read Pope Julius's declaration expressing a papal belief that "Christians are the unstable, unlettered, superstitious masses" (Diderot's Encyclopédie, 1759), and we can clearly understand why he is dismissed as an embarrassment.

He was not disturbed by a delegation of monks who approached him expressing criticism of the clergy and the morals of his cardinals. He had heard the like before; people for centuries past had complained that popes, cardinals, bishops and priests lived immoral lives, and that popes loved sex, power and wealth more than being Vicars of Christ.

The pope advised his secretary to take three mistresses at one time, "in memory of the Holy Trinity", and frankly admitted that he loved the title "Warrior of Rome" applied to him by the populace. He had tired of seeing Giulia Farnese playing Virgin Mary on the fresco; he wished to move into the four chambers once used by Pope Nicholas V (1447-55), and he wanted these rooms decorated with paintings congenial to his self-perceived heroic stature and aims.

In the summer of 1508, Julius summoned Raphael (1483-1529) to Rome, and around the same time commissioned Michelangelo (1474-1564) to create an array of works for the Vatican. Michelangelo subsequently carved a marble statue of him, and Julius II examined it with a puzzled expression, asking,

"What is that under my arm?"

"A Bible, your Holiness," replied Michelangelo.

"What do I know of Bibles?" roared the Pope; "I am a warlord; give me a sword instead"

(Storia d'Italia, op. cit.; quoted in A History of the Popes, ibid.).

His preference for a sword over a Bible had its effect in Rome and he became known as "Pope Dreadful" and "Pope Terror" (ibid.).
......

On 11 March 1513, Giovanni was elected pope and assumed the name of Leo X. He had not yet been ordained a priest, but this defect was remedied on 15 March at a Vatican celebration for the anniversary of the death of Divine Julius (Julius Caesar) (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 3rd ed., Edinburgh, 1788-97, vol. ix).

........ He satisfied only those "who looked upon the Papal Court as a centre of amusement" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., 1897, iii, p. 227). The belief that Leo began to indulge in unnatural vice after he became pope was so seriously held in Rome that the two leading historians of his time recorded the information.

Guicciardini noted that the new pope accepted the pagan enjoyment of life and was "exceedingly devoted to the flesh, especially those pleasures which cannot, with decency, be mentioned" (Istoria d'Italia, 1832 ed., lib. xvi, ch. v, p. 254).

Paolo Cardinal Giovio (Jovius), biographer of Leo X, after speaking of the pope's "excessive luxury" and "regal license", claimed to have "penetrated the secrets of the night", adding:

"Nor was he free from the infamy that he seemed to have an improper love of some of his chamberlains, who were members of the noblest families of Italy"

(De Vita Leonis Decimi, Pontificus Maximus, Paolo Giovio, 1897 English ed., lib. iv, pp. 96-99).

...........

"When Pope Julius died, Giovanni de' Medici (to become Leo X) was very ill of venereal disease at Florence and was carried to Rome in a litter. Later, an ulcer broke and the matter which ran from it exhaled such a stench that all the cells in the enclave, which were separated only by thin partitions, were poisoned by it. Upon this, the cardinals consulted with physicians of the enclave, to know what the matter was.

They, being bribed earlier [by Giovanni de' Medici himself], said de' Medici could not live a month; which sentence occasioned his being chosen pope. Thus Giovanni de' Medici, then 38 years of age, was elected pope on false information and, as joy is the most sovereign of all remedies, he soon recovered his health, so that the old cardinals soon had reason to repent."
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 3rd ed., op. cit., vol. ix, p. 788)

A hale and hearty Pope Leo X now filled the pontifical chair and his first declaration was:

"God has given me the papacy, now let me enjoy it"

(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 13th ed., xix, pp. 926-7).

That was an indication of what was to come from the man who fully developed the sale of "indulgences" into Christianity and established the framework for yet another military strike (the 18th crusade since 1096).

The Church made the following apologetic summary about him:

"As an ecclesiastic, his deficiency in professional knowledge, his utter indifference to the restraint of his character, the reputed laxity of his principles, his proneness to dissimulation, his deeply rooted voluptuousness and his fondness for the society of musicians, jesters and buffoons rendered him contemptible, or something worse.

By a course of lavish expenditure in the indulgence of his own taste for luxury and magnificence, by the part which he took in the troublous politics of the day ... Leo completely drained the papal treasury."
(Annales Ecclesiastici, Caesar Baronius, Antwerp, 1592-97, folio iii)

Leo gathered about him a company of gross men: flatterers, purveyors of indecent jokes and stories, and writers of obscene comedies which were often performed in the Vatican with cardinals as actors. His chief friend was Cardinal Bimmiena, whose comedies were more obscene than any of ancient Athens or Rome and who was one of the most immoral men of his time.

Leo had to eat temperately for he was morbidly fat, but his banquets were as costly as they were vulgar and the coarsest jesters and loosest courtesans sat with him and the cardinals. Since these things are not disputed, the Church does not deny the evidence of his vices. In public affairs he was the most notoriously dishonorable Vicar of Christ of the Renaissance period, but it is not possible here to tell the extraordinary story of his alliances, wars and cynical treacheries. His nepotism was as corrupt as that of any pope, and when some of the cardinals conspired to kill him he had the flesh of their servants ripped off with red-hot pincers to extract information (Crises in the History of the Papacy, op. cit., ch. v, "The Popes React with Massacre and Inquisition").

The Church had scarcely a pope more dedicated to expensive pleasures or by whom money was so anxiously sought than Leo X. Pope Julius II had earlier bestowed indulgences on all who contributed towards building the basilica of St Peter in Vatican City, and Leo X rapidly expanded upon the doctrine. An indulgence was the sale of dispensations to secure mainly the rich from the threat of burning or the bogus release from sins such as murder, polygamy, sacrilege, perjury and witchcraft (Indulgences: Their Origin, Nature and Development, Quaracchi, 1897).

For a sum of money, property or some penitential act, a pardon was conveyed, or a release from the pains of purgatory or guilt or the forgiveness of sins was granted to any person who bestowed wealth upon the Church. The year after his election, he sold the archbishopric of Mainz and two bishoprics to a rich, loose-living young noble, Albert of Brandenburg, for a huge sum and permitted him to recover his investment by the sordid traffic in indulgences which a few years later inflamed Martin Luther.

The rich were not the only group he targeted:

"Here ... the love of money was the chief root of the evil; indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain ... money was extracted from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, vii, p. 787)

And that was some 500 years before the Vatican received its first banking license. Lord Bryce (1838-1922), British jurist, author and statesman, summarized the mental and moral qualities of the priesthood that indulgences reflected.

He said that its concept was,

"a blatant fraud against the naive ... a portentous falsehood and the most unimpeachable evidence of the true thoughts and beliefs of the priesthood which framed it"

(The Holy Roman Empire, Lord Bryce, 1864, ch. vi, p. 107; Latin text, extracts, p. 76).

To replenish the coffers and maintain his "luxuriant abundance", Leo expanded the sale of indulgences into a major source of Church revenue and developed a large body of priests to collect the payments. In forming his plans, he was assisted mainly by his relative Laurentius Pucci, whom he made Cardinal of Santi-quattro, and Johann Tetzel, a former military officer of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia. They appointed a series of retailers to keep pace with the disposal of goods given to pay for indulgences, and he and his team then set off on a mission through Italy to entice more sales.

This picturesque overview is drawn from Diderot's Encyclopédie, and provides one reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes destroyed immediately after its publication in 1759 (The Censoring of Diderot's 'Encyclopédie' and the Re-established Text, D. H. Gordon and N. L. Torrey, Columbia University Press, New York, 1947):

"The indulgence-seekers passed through the country in gay carriages escorted by thirty horsemen, in great state and spending freely. The pontiff's Bull of Grace was borne in front on a purple velvet cushion, or sometimes on a cloth of gold. The chief vendor of indulgences followed with his team, supporting a large red wooden cross; and the whole procession moved in this manner amidst singing and the smoke of incense.

As soon as the cross was elevated, and the Pope's arms suspended upon it, Tetzel ascended the pulpit, and with a bold tone began, in the presence of the crowd, to exalt the efficacy of indulgences.

The pope was the last speaker and cried out, 'Bring money, bring money, bring money'. He uttered this cry with such a dreadful bellowing that one might have thought that some wild bull was rushing among the people and goring them with his horns."
(Diderot's Encyclopédie, 1759; expanded upon in History of the Great Reformation of the 16th Century, J. H. Merle d'Aubigné, 1840, London ed. trans. Prof. S. L. MacGuire, 1942, vol. 2, p. 168)

Tetzel and the priests associated with him falsely represented their task and exaggerated the value of indulgences so as to lead people to believe that "as soon as they gave their money, they were certain of salvation and the deliverance of souls from purgatory" (Diderot's Encyclopédie).

So strong was the Protestant movement's opposition to the sale of indulgences that Pope Leo X issued a bull called Exsurge Domine, its purpose being to condemn Martin Luther's damaging assertions that "indulgences are frauds against the faithful and criminal offences against God" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 3rd ed., op. cit., vol. ix, p. 788; also, James Moore's Dublin Edition, 1790-97, "Medici" entry).

_________________________________

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Lucifer777
The New Testament: A Fabrication, created for Social Control. The Conclusions of Historical and Textual Studies of the New Testament.

I must disagree. Critical New Testament Scholars believe that 6 of Paul the Apostles epistles are genuine and accurate.

That is simply an appeal to authority and is contradiction without argument; an argument would state what "evidence" exists that Paul's Epistles' genuinely can be traced back to the early first century, and frankly there is no such evidence that I am aware of.

Lux

____________________

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

We had better hope it's true. I know all these things about women and homosexuals may seem like injustices, but what world would you rather live in, the one we live in now, or the one we had when Christianity was dominant.

I suppose there will always be Christian fanatics who are simply primitive savages and who would rather live in the more primitive pre-Enlightenment (i.e., the Age of Science and Reason) world of Christian tyranny and slavery (Fuedalism, for most Europeans, was a form of viritual slavery) where religious fanatics could be paid to torture and execute heretics, adulterers, witches and homosexuals, unless you so happened to be part of the religious and political aristocracy, in which case you were virtually above all laws and could do what you wish.

Are we better off now? (Lol). Maybe you prefer the Bohemian grovers, with their black robes, worshipping an owl.

What the members of the Bohemian Grove club have in common is that they are generally multi-millionaire economic elites; there are numerous Christians of the multi-billion dollar Jesus business whose behaviour has been little different, except that they worship "Jesus" rather than an owl statue. Further I doubt that any of those multi-billionaires truly worship an owl; the all male Bohemian Grove events just seem to be an excuse to get away for a period of drunken revelry, feasting and gay sex. Such events happen every day of the week in myriads of gay bars, clubs and saunas throughout the world; if the Bohemian Grove memebrs were not multi-mullionaires, I doubt that there would be such attention given to the event by conspiracy theorists.

Or the materialists, in which case there's no reason not to kill, rape and do whatever. Oh I see, your screen name is "Lucifer".

This is a common argument, that unless you live in fear of the genocidal, tyrannical, infanticidal, human hating deity of the Bible, that you have no reason to be "good." That is simply because you are not good, anyway; if you were "good" you would not consider the genocidal deity of the Bible to a definition of goodness, but rather to be a definition of evil; that you consider such an evil definition of a deity to be "good" is simply because you are evil yourself.

There are many humanists (who love human beings rather than the gods) and atheists who do not live in fear of a human hating deity and yet still manage to be good and to be loving; which is quite the opposite of the behaviour and attitude of Christians in general.

Lux

Originally posted by Lucifer777
The New Testament: A Fabrication, created for Social Control. The Conclusions of Historical and Textual Studies of the New Testament.

Since the Religious Reformation of the 16th century, with the ending of the monopoly of the Roman Church on Christianity, we have seen the rise of numerous different corporations and flavours of the Capitalist Jesus business, usually all claiming to sell salvation to the gullible in the name of the "true" form of Christianity, and usually all based on the "truth" of a totally fabricated, edited and re-edited piece of childish fiction, the New Testament.


Those who have been indoctrinated and hypnotised by the professional hypnotists (i.e., the professional priesthood, clergy) of the multi-billion dollar Jesus business continue in the 21st century to attempt to infect others with their own delusions; delusions which are by no means harmless, since the Biblical deity is clearly, as Richard Dawkins has stated "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully," Unfortunately those who do not consider such qualities to be morally repugnant are likely to manifest such qualities themselves, and the long and bloody history of Christianity is ample testimony to this.



More on the thread: "The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination: The genocidal faiths of Christianity & Islam, on: www.abovetopsecret.com...




The Seven Signs of a Christian Charlatan.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Mark 16.

Consider the 7 Signs of those who are allegedly "not" condemned according to the Gospel of Mark

Well that's all good and fine except, I have to ask you - Have you tested it out? Sure you can speak from head knowledge this or that but have you considered to really test this thing?

Have you been baptized for the remission of your sins? Have you followed and acted on Jesus's commandments and seen if his words were really spirit and life?

Granted MAN has done much evil in the name of God and The Church. and that can cause many people to shy away. But really finding out by a first hand personal experience for yourself to see if it's true may make you see things a little differently. If you have not done this, you can talk all you want but you have nothing to back up your claims.

In my church I was taught - Don't be a sheep! I was taught Question Everything! I was taught ask questions and research both the bible and historical archeological texts and findings. I was taught IN CHURCH, Yeah, this is what The Bible says But DON'T believe Us - Simply test what is written for yourself through what it says.. pray, fast, ask God to show you what is true.. we wont tell you anything else.. just sit back and let you find out for yourself between you and God if there is anything to it.. Good luck kid.

There was no hypnosis, no indoctrination. I have seen many churches and This church was different than any other one I had seen.

So, I went home, and studied and read and prayed and fasted and actually started to do the commandments to see if they would effect my life. And you know what.. it Did in a positive way. - so i know there is something to it.. heck even my church told me not everything in the bible is right and 100% accurate - but it's not about that.. its about god revealing himself to you in a real personal way. as long as you get that, the bible could just as well be a 5 page book with blank pages. I tested it.

I ask you .. have you tested it?

Since the Religious Reformation of the 16th century, with the ending of the monopoly of the Roman Church on Christianity, we have seen the rise of numerous different corporations and flavours of the Capitalist Jesus business, usually all claiming to sell salvation to the gullible in the name of the "true" form of Christianity, and usually all based on the "truth" of a totally fabricated, edited and re-edited piece of childish fiction, the New Testament.

Just a little historical note here. The Roman Catholic Church never did have a monopoly on Christianity. Have you forgotten about the Orthodox Catholic Church (more commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church), also do not forget the Coptic Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church. Since your history is flawed, then perhaps your whole argument is flawed.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Originally posted by adjensen
There is a nice point by point refutation of Busby here --

Well you obviously have not read the essay by Busby which you are responding to, since the site above does not deal with the points made in that essay.

It demonstrates that he's a bumpkin who doesn't know what he's talking about.

though I would have tossed the thing back into the remainder bin when I'd have seen this on the cover:

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." - Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

Yes of of course you would; that is quite to be expected from a Christian; anything critical of your irrational, ahistorical fabricated faith should simply be binned.

.. snip ..

It is you that is simply offering a lame conspiracy theory which is not supported by historical evidence.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

So your "proof" that Bushby isn't just making stuff up is an article written by Bushby? Well, okay, let's look at the claim.

Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted:

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors."

The pope's pronouncement is recorded in the diaries and records of both Pietro Cardinal Bembo (Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, 1842 reprint) and Paolo Cardinal Giovio (De Vita Leonis Decimi..., op. cit.), two associates who were witnesses to it.

Well, perhaps you can help me with a problem here. Regardless of what Leo might have meant by this supposed statement, it appears that he made it in private, and so it is attested to by the writings of two people. I took a bit of time to look at the first of the two, and try as I might, I can find no reference to a book by Pietro Bembo called Letter and Comments on Pope Leo X, apart from a couple of citations from it (including this one) that are made by critics of the Catholic church, and which are repeated over and over with no reference to the actual book.

In article after article, no bibliography of Bembo seems to include that book, and there are no references, apart from modern conspiracy theorists. That seems a bit suspicious, wouldn't you say? It also seems a bit odd that Bushby keeps citing "Cardinal Bembo", yet Bembo wasn't named a Cardinal until 19 years after the death of Leo.

Now, as I am not Catholic, and I bear no attachment to Pope Leo X, or any Pope, for that matter, there's really nothing that any of them are going to say that makes a big difference to me. I don't believe that he made that statement, but even if he did, who cares? He's just some guy.

However, we have Bushby claiming that the satirist playwright was simply restating a legitimate Papal comment, but the source that he cites to support it doesn't seem to exist. If you've a pointer to the actual text (Italian is fine), I would like to see it.

FEW RECOGNIZE SATAN GIVING THEM THOUGHTS or stirring up their emotions, such as anger, bitterness, unforgiveness, fear, and pride.
Satan uses your desire-to be someone, to be wanted, and your desire to live the way you want-to deceive you.
He puts hate, rebellion and stubbornness in your heart, while God puts love, forgiveness, and the fruits of the Spirit in your heart. Which do you follow?
Satan tells man he can serve God and himself. Man believes it, but then perishes.
Satan does not tell those he deceives they will perish, but God's Word does, but man does not believe God. Many do not believe there is a hell until they get there. Search the Scriptures and see for yourself.
Most are clueless regarding their own thoughts, Satan's thoughts in their head, or the Lord trying to correct them. To most, ALL THOUGHTS ARE SIMPLY THEIR OWN. To them the idea that they have thoughts from Satan is ridiculous.

reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone


The Bit About Tongues in Mark 16

He (Jesus) said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.'

(Mark 16:15-18 (NIV), courtesy of Bible Gateway)

Some sects have picked up on the 'they will speak in new tongues' to mean that ALL Christians must speak in tongues. Apart from the complete absence of any such statement in the rest of the New Testament (and 1 Corinthians 12:30 stating the opposite), there are three reasons why this passage can be shown not to teach this.

1. The Greek does not actually say ALL
Verse 17 says 'these signs will follow THOSE who believe'. The plural THOSE is the key. Being a plural, it means that the signs will follow Christians as a group. To indicate every single Christian, a singular pronoun would have to be used, i.e. 'these signs will follower WHOEVER believes'.

Note that this is exactly the language used in verse 16!

So verse 16 (the need to believe and be baptised) applies to everyone. Verses 17-18 (the signs) apply to Christians as a group.

That it [the promise of signs] was fulfilled is evident from casual references in the epistles of St. Paul e.g. 1 Cor xii 28, Gal iii 5, though the formar passage shows that the sEmeia [signs] did not, even in the apostolic age, attend every believer. (tois pisteusasin [the believers] not tw pisteusanti [the believer]). Their purpose was to be the 'signs' of the Divine mission of the church, not to accredit the indiviual.

[Henry Barclay Swete, 'The Gospel According to St. Mark' (MacMillan, 3rd Edition, 1909, p. 405). Emphasis mine]

2. The evidence of Acts

This is exactly what happened in Acts: each of the signs listed (except drinking poison) actually is recorded in the book of Acts. See The Text of Mark 16 which shows how Mark 16:9-20 is probably an attempt to fill in the missing end to Mark by using the data in Matthew, Luke, John and Acts.

3. If Tongues is for all, so must be the other signs

If one is to say, ALL Christians must speak in tongues, then one must be consistent: ALL must drive out demons, ALL must pick up snakes (safely) and ALL must heal people.

It is not good enough to say 'a true Christian will not be harmed if he or she happens to pick up a snake'. That is not what the text says. The text is clear: 'they WILL pick up snakes'. In fact, the text could easily have said 'If they pick up snakes, they will not be harmed' - because that is what it says about drinking poison. But on the bit about snakes, it is an unconditional statement: 'they WILL up snakes'.

Conclusion

The promises of Mark 16:17-18 relate to Christians as a group. Some (not all) will pick up snakes (as Paul did). Some (not all) will heal people and cast out demons (as at least some of the apostles did). And some (not all) will speak in tongues. This is the meaning of the text, and the evidence both of the book of Acts and the history of the church.


Link

And Richard Dawkins?




Meh . . . but you are just here to troll, so I will drop out now.

Have fun bashing

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Originally posted by adjensen
There is a nice point by point refutation of Busby here --

Well you obviously have not read the essay by Busby which you are responding to, since the site above does not deal with the points made in that essay.

It demonstrates that he's a bumpkin who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Well that is quite a statement from a person whose religion is entirely based on fabricated, edited and re-edited documents about a fake miracle worker.

Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted:

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors."

The pope's pronouncement is recorded in the diaries and records of both Pietro Cardinal Bembo (Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, 1842 reprint) and Paolo Cardinal Giovio (De Vita Leonis Decimi..., op. cit.), two associates who were witnesses to it.

Well, perhaps you can help me with a problem here. Regardless of what Leo might have meant by this supposed statement, it appears that he made it in private, and so it is attested to by the writings of two people. I took a bit of time to look at the first of the two, and try as I might, I can find no reference to a book by Pietro Bembo called Letter and Comments on Pope Leo X, apart from a couple of citations from it (including this one) that are made by critics of the Catholic church, and which are repeated over and over with no reference to the actual book.

In article after article, no bibliography of Bembo seems to include that book, and there are no references, apart from modern conspiracy theorists. That seems a bit suspicious, wouldn't you say? It also seems a bit odd that Bushby keeps citing "Cardinal Bembo", yet Bembo wasn't named a Cardinal until 19 years after the death of Leo.

Neither of the links you have cited offer comprehensive biographies, of Bembo, and latter, the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia describes him as a prolific writer and only lists a partial biography. What you are really arguing is that since you cannot find a reference to the work on the Internet, that therefore it does not exist. You will really have to do much better than this to support your false witness of Busby. Further the second source of the quotation cited by Busby is Paolo Cardinal Giovio's "De Vita Leonis Decimi (the Life of Leo X)." This is a well known piece of writing, and is available in the Latin online ( www.tertullian.org... ), though I cannot source an English version of it.

Now, as I am not Catholic, and I bear no attachment to Pope Leo X, or any Pope, for that matter, there's really nothing that any of them are going to say that makes a big difference to me. I don't believe that he made that statement, but even if he did, who cares? He's just some guy.

You don't "believe" he made such a statement because you do not want to, and you "do" believe in the New Testament and that a 2000 year old religious fanatic discovered a miracle cure for leprosy, blindness and even death, because you do want to, despite the overwhelming evidence of the fabrication of the New Testament. Pope Leo X was probably one of the most corrupt Popes in human history and he made many far more outrageous statements, which you probably won't believe either if it does not suit your agenda.

However, we have Bushby claiming that the satirist playwright was simply restating a legitimate Papal comment, but the source that he cites to support it doesn't seem to exist. If you've a pointer to the actual text (Italian is fine), I would like to see it.

If it is not on the Internet it does not exist? Well so much for a modern education. Perhaps we should just burn all the libraries in the world. It is you who is making allegations regarding Busby which amount to "bearing falkse witness" and it is for you to offer evidence to support your "false witness, and "I cannot find the book on the Internet" is only evidence of your own stupidity.

Lux


___________________

Originally posted by Faith2011

FEW RECOGNIZE SATAN GIVING THEM THOUGHTS or stirring up their emotions, such as anger, bitterness, unforgiveness, fear, and pride.
Satan uses your desire-to be someone, to be wanted, and your desire to live the way you want-to deceive you.
He puts hate, rebellion and stubbornness in your heart, while God puts love, forgiveness, and the fruits of the Spirit in your heart. Which do you follow?
Satan tells man he can serve God and himself. Man believes it, but then perishes.
Satan does not tell those he deceives they will perish, but God's Word does, but man does not believe God. Many do not believe there is a hell until they get there. Search the Scriptures and see for yourself.
Most are clueless regarding their own thoughts, Satan's thoughts in their head, or the Lord trying to correct them. To most, ALL THOUGHTS ARE SIMPLY THEIR OWN. To them the idea that they have thoughts from Satan is ridiculous.

Apparently "Faith2011" believes that Satan is interfering with his/her mind and is in direct communication with him / her. This is what can happen when people revere a model of religious schizophrenia, such as Jesus, as a model of perfect mental health. Unfortunately it has been estimated that about a quarter of institutionalised schizophrenics are suffering from a religious form of schizophrenia where such persons often claim that their thoughts are not their own and that they are communicating with god, gods, devils or the devil, etc. Further Jesus' alleged "cure" for mental and physical illnesses was the "laying on of hands" or "exorcism." There is absolutely no evidence that exorcisms can cure mental illnesses; in fact there is widespread condemnation of the practice of exorcism and of charlatan faith healers and miracle workers by the scientific and medical community.

Lux

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Neither of the links you have cited offer comprehensive biographies, of Bembo, and latter, the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia describes him as a prolific writer and only lists a partial biography.

Bibliography, Ace, not biography.

If it is not on the Internet it does not exist?

No, Ace. I don't care if it exists on the Internet (and since you responded like this, rather than producing a copy, I guess you couldn't scare one up after a search, either.) I just find it odd that the only references to it are conspiracy claims that seem to point back to Bushby. Doesn't mean he made it up, just seems a little less credible.

As for your other insults, meh. From what I've seen of your beliefs, I'm not sure I'd be so quick to cast stones, and if becoming a Grumpy Gus like you is the result of all the drugs, psychosis and anger, I'll stick with a simple faith, thanks.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Neither of the links you have cited offer comprehensive biographies, of Bembo, and latter, the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia describes him as a prolific writer and only lists a partial biography.

Bibliography, Ace, not biography.

Yes, my apologies, it was a typo.

If it is not on the Internet it does not exist?

No, Ace. I don't care if it exists on the Internet (and since you responded like this, rather than producing a copy, I guess you couldn't scare one up after a search, either.) I just find it odd that the only references to it are conspiracy claims that seem to point back to Bushby. Doesn't mean he made it up, just seems a little less credible.

Because he cited a print reference instead of a work which has been scanned to the Internet? I think that there are many ways in which the Internet is responsible for mass education, but in this sense there may also be a dumbing down process.

As for your other insults, meh. From what I've seen of your beliefs, I'm not sure I'd be so quick to cast stones, and if becoming a Grumpy Gus like you is the result of all the drugs, psychosis and anger, I'll stick with a simple faith, thanks.

I am not here to exchange arbitrary insults. However the Biblical faith is certainly an insult to human intelligence and natural human morality. A person who is willing to believe in a fabricated text about a 2000 year old fake miracle worker and exorcist, and his primitive and genocidal, human hating Bronze Age deity is clearly, in my opinion either deficient in intelligence, education or mental health.

Lux

____________

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Well that's all good and fine except, I have to ask you - Have you tested it out? Sure you can speak from head knowledge this or that but have you considered to really test this thing?

Have you been baptized for the remission of your sins? Have you followed and acted on Jesus's commandments and seen if his words were really spirit and life?

Granted MAN has done much evil in the name of God and The Church. and that can cause many people to shy away. But really finding out by a first hand personal experience for yourself to see if it's true may make you see things a little differently. If you have not done this, you can talk all you want but you have nothing to back up your claims.

In my church I was taught - Don't be a sheep! I was taught Question Everything! I was taught ask questions and research both the bible and historical archeological texts and findings. I was taught IN CHURCH, Yeah, this is what The Bible says But DON'T believe Us - Simply test what is written for yourself through what it says.. pray, fast, ask God to show you what is true.. we wont tell you anything else.. just sit back and let you find out for yourself between you and God if there is anything to it.. Good luck kid.

There was no hypnosis, no indoctrination. I have seen many churches and This church was different than any other one I had seen.

So, I went home, and studied and read and prayed and fasted and actually started to do the commandments to see if they would effect my life. And you know what.. it Did in a positive way. - so i know there is something to it.. heck even my church told me not everything in the bible is right and 100% accurate - but it's not about that.. its about god revealing himself to you in a real personal way. as long as you get that, the bible could just as well be a 5 page book with blank pages. I tested it.

I ask you .. have you tested it?

Well the academic field of "The Study of Religion" has nothing to do with "joining" religions or practicing their teachings. Furthermore I have yet to come accross a single Christian in print, in person or on the Internet who have actually successfully tested out the teachings of Jesus.

I would ask you, can you miraculously cure leprosy and blindness? Can you move mountains into the sea by faith alone? Is "any" request which you ask in Jesus name granted,as he promised? Can you drink deadly poison and survive?

If you can do any of these things, I suggest that you make an application to the James Randi Institute who are offering a one million dollar reward for proof of such miraculous powers, and thus far none of the famous Christian charlatans who practice fake healing, fake miracles and who prey on the vulnerable and the sick has been able to qualify for this reward; indeed no person whatsoever has qualified.

Further if you claim to have to put the teachings of Jesus to the test, I must ask if you follow the savage, primitive and genocidal Mosaic Law, and when you last executed anyone for failing to observe the Sabbath or for worshipping other deities etc., and if you have stopped eating pork, shellfish (such as sinful prawns, shrimp and lobster which are obviously abominations against God which God hates). Have you stopped commiting the sin of cutting your hair and shaving your beard? Have you sold all your possessions and given all to the poor? Have you stopped carrying money? Have you stopped wearing shoes? Have you reduced your possessions to a single robe and a sword? Do you refrain from going into the towns and cities of the Gentiles? Have you refrained from marrying a Gentile?

Of course I don't expect any Christian has done all these things, simply because their faith is based on a selective "cherry picking" and "quote mining" of the texts to suit their own personal misinterpretations, beliefs and bigotry. "Jesus" is generally just a projection of the Christian's own imagination, and if the Christian is homophobic, Jesus becomes homophobic, and if the Christian is an evangelical militant Capitalist and anti-Communist, then Jesus becomes an evangelical militant Capitalist and anti-Communist; this has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the stated teachings and religion of the Jesus of the Gospels, and everything to do with the anthropomorphic projections of the Christian religious fanatics themselves. Whenever I refer to the stated religion and teachings of Jesus, it is usually the Christians who are the most openly hostile to them; thus establishing their utter hypocrisy.

Lux

I sense that most non-Christians today see hypocrisy in self-professed Christians. Christians are supposed to be reflections of Jesus's teachings, and we all fall short. It is sad that we do not do a good job of mirroring Jesus, and I hope some out there will look past the hypocrites that cloud their opinions of our Lord.

I dont blame anyone for not believing in something they cannot prove. As an INTP, I constantly question what I have been taught vs what I read. It pulls at me daily! All I can do is have faith and hope in what I cannot prove. The one thing that bothers me is when people insist that there is no God; people are fallible, and it seems unwise to state as fact what they themselves cannot prove or disprove. Arrogance, from Christians and nonbelievers alike, is never attractive.

Don't see how we can generalize a faith based on extremest examples ?

Faith can and will produce extremest views in ALL aspects , not just religion or any one specific religion . It's human nature , and to simply pin it on religion is kinda silly and not very realistic .

The best way to " show off your faith " is to live by example and to let your conduct reflect your believes without saying a word .

And , if at any time you feel the need to judge another beware , you just may be one of those religious extremists .