The Great Jesus Swindle, Greatest lie ever told.

Originally posted by thewanger
Jesus is the son of God. If people would live by what he said(the words in red, in The Bible) and not what others said about him the world would be at peace. He's not like Muslims; who say to kill those who won't convert. He says that if you don't want what he offers then so be it. True Christians do not believe in violence of any kind. For country or family or anything on this earth. Jesus said: I send you out as lambs among wolves. No protection, no defense. His answer for what should we do was: Be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents. All we have is our wits. Jesus is not a lie or a swindle. The real question is: Are you going to be a Christian or just another person trying to get by at the expense of your fellow man. Read the New Testament but only the words of Jesus(get a Bible where they are in red) and then tell me what you think.

Dear Thewanger and all other religious people posting here.

What Jesus said, if he even said it, is up for a huge debate. The Bible is a prefabricated compilation of "Gospels" according to the chosen "Gospels" during the Council of Nicea.

So essentially what i'm saying here is your belief is in something man made, recounting something which happened 2000 years ago, apparently.

Don't you think blind faith in Christianity and Jesus is somewhat ironic? I'm sure most of you wouldn't be able to recount what happened 200 years ago, let alone factually. It is all second (second century) hand information.

Question your beliefs, don't just be sheep and follow them.

Regards,
T

reply to post by torqpoc


en.wikipedia.org...
"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all.[45][46] The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, perhaps as early as 150 years before the council."

Not saying it wasn't edited and all that jazz. It just wasn't at the Council of Nicaea like a lot of people think. Or at least there is no evidence of that whatsoever. It would of most likely had to have taken place a hundred years before that.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Dear Tinfoilman (love the name!),
Well what can I say other than thank you, I stand corrected! I appreciate that, as I am here to learn, like most people i'd assume.

I like the added comment you made which kind of states what I was saying.. =)

Regards,
T

Originally posted by Jordan River

Next time do all of us a favor and use quotes for your post.

Post removed

Oh boy, I predict that a certain member will experience Mod-Problems very soon.
It is a great shame each time a good and interesting discussion between two members devolve into an angry fight with naughty words been thrown around.
Very unnecessary and truly a shame on the destiny of a very interesting debate.

Originally posted by Nightchild
Oh boy, I predict that a certain member will experience Mod-Problems very soon.

It is a great shame each time a good and interesting discussion between two members devolve into an angry fight with naughty words been thrown around.
Very unnecessary and truly a shame on the destiny of a very interesting debate.

If you are talking about me this post was suppose to be an edited post that I have made early.
In stead of editing the post ATS created a new one, I don't know why.

reply to post by pepsi78


Oh no, I am not talking about you. You can feel safe. Lol

Originally posted by Condemned0625
I don't like living among a bunch of brainwashed idiots who waste the time of others and even ruin the lives of others. 2 days taken from nearly every week for the first 17 years of my life was spent in churches and other religious nonsense. All of that time adds up to a few years of my life basically flushed down the toilet.

Ditto! I knew from a very early age I was being lied to but everyone - especially my parents - kept telling me that I did'nt know Sh=t! and that 'God' was the only way!! Fortunately when I turned 16 I was kicked out of the indoctrination house called the church after proving to his whole church that he was a liar, which of course he did'nt like - he accused me of being possessed by Satan and tried to put his hand over my mouth so that I could'nt speak, so I punched him on the nose and left, never to return.

reply to post by torqpoc


that's a very good question, and i've pondered it often. as i learn, i reassess that question as well. this is what i've concluded thus far:

i find it exceedingly bizarre that so many people have been completely convinced that ancient historical texts (which many religious texts, actually are) are nothing but mythology, even after evidences used to discount them at one time, have themselves been proven incorrect. this part bothers me the most. there's always plenty of room to debate whether a person is having or has had a real spiritual experience, but to suggest some 4000+ years of ancient history is nothing but lies.......it's astonishing. it hampers communication on the subject, dramatically, and is creating new converts out of former atheists and agnostics, just on the sheer, bold-faced, stubborn denial of historical evidence.

i find it exceedingly frustrating that both extremes of this subject have absolutely zero tolerance for each other. i mean, opposite positions are often like that but in this case, the lack of tolerance is maddening. the inability to even try to comprehend what the other is saying, it's ..it's like talking to a wall. might as well be spitting into the wind.

i've often found areas of the translated texts of many ancient and modern cultures, to have questionable results. this does not mean the original texts are outright, deliberate fabrications however, only that time and distance from the original cultures involved, causes people to make assumptions that then end up in their translations. which they then teach as absolute truth, which is later called into question, and then found to be incorrect, and then used as evidence THAT ALL OF IT is incorrect. then we are faced with extreme positions: it's either all correct or it's all false. le mew, le sigh, le i wonder what's on tv. : /

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by torqpoc

 

en.wikipedia.org...
"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all.[45][46] The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, perhaps as early as 150 years before the council."

Not saying it wasn't edited and all that jazz. It just wasn't at the Council of Nicaea like a lot of people think. Or at least there is no evidence of that whatsoever. It would of most likely had to have taken place a hundred years before that.

edit on 6-4-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Need a better source than Wikipedia mate. There are hundreds of sources that say editing took place not only at the council of Nicea but also at the council of Trent - here is one from the BBC - www.bbc.co.uk... and here is another link for you to ponder -www.deism.com...

reply to post by TattooedWarrior


although, like you, i'm not completely convinced of the extent of editing of the texts one way or the other, and although wikipedia isn't always the penultimate in accurate knowledge resources, i do believe that all knowledge sources should be equally questioned for veracity on the subject of ancient texts, in particular.
the reason i say this is, the onset of the enlightenment period started when a scholar of higher criticism (friedrich wolf), who was charged with the task of proving the papal interpretation of the bible was the most accurate historical account known to man, suddenly claimed that ancient greeks couldn't write when their texts were said to be written (homeric problem). it had a snowball effect, in which the bulk of ancient history ended up in the bin marked "fiction."

40 years later, after the advent of archaeology, it turned out his assessment was wrong, but too many scholarly documents (and innocent people) had been destroyed in order to bring in the new truth. and so, they have since then, reprinted the same critical works, quoted from the same critical works, which covered everything from the veracity of the histories of the greek states to the writings of the hindus, while ignoring archaeological evidence to the contrary. this evidence is coming out of every branch of science but even the smallest tolerance is nearly non-existent. it's like watching a shakespearean tragedy.

reply to post by TattooedWarrior


If you feel there's ever anything wrong with any information on Wikipedia please feel free to discuss the issue with the many good people that work on it. Anyone can contribute to the site. There are minor errors on the site from time to time, but they're usually fixed very quickly, within minutes or hours.

The vast majority of people that contribute to the site don't wish to mislead anyone. They try their best and cite their sources at the bottom which you can also examine. If you find something that is in error on the site they will listen to you and let you change it and if you are correct they will let your edit stand as they have for me in the past.

So there is never a reason to attack Wikipedia and argue about it as a source. Simply go edit the page and fix it my friend if you find an error because there are many more people that will read Wikipedia then there are that will read this thread. It's a community effort and they also have their sources listed at the bottom of the article if you need to go over those.

If you need more sources on the topic a simple Google search for council of nicaea myth will bring up some good pages, and some bad pages so you'll have to filter through.

However, the myth isn't really in dispute anymore by most people in the know. At this point it's just common knowledge so a simple easier to read link is all that is really required. It's just a matter of if we can admit to ourselves that we were in error, as I used to believe the myth about the council of nicaea myself. Oh well, live and learn.

I was reading the sources you posted and they also seem to be operating under misconceptions that all seem to stem from the same original source, that being the movie Zeitgeist. This film contains many factual errors that have spread across the net. For example from your link www.bbc.co.uk... it repeats common misconceptions about deities such as Dionysus and Krishna.

Such as the Krishna virgin birth myth "Krishna - Hindu deity, born of the virgin Devaki around 1200 BC."

However, Krishna was Devaki's eighth child and Devaki was in no way a virgin! So it appears that your sources are the ones in error my friend and inspired by the factually incorrect Zeitgeist film.

Now of course I can't go over all the errors present in the film in this thread, but if you wish to learn something there is another thread you may be interested in which can be found here and you can learn where these errors stem from. www.abovetopsecret.com...

And while the poster seems a bit angry, the videos contained in the thread are very educational.

Religion is man-made. God is God. Jesus is Jesus. Do not mix God up with religion. It would be an insult to Him.

Do not use the imperfection of man as an excuse to write off the perfection of God.

There are many other historical proofs of Jesus and His life in books other than the Bible. If the Romans and the Jews of the time could have produced proof of Jesus and His life being a lie, they would have. It would have been chronicled. They would have loved nothing more than to disprove Him. They couldn't.

WOOOOOOWWW. I'm really digging this thread, because it's given me a lot of new insight as to how i feel about "lucifer" now...Maybe i am brainwashed by society into believing that YHWH is the good one and lucifer is bad. it makes sense that the bad guy would try and demonize the good guy. It's just so hard to make a logical decision because facts have been twisted so horribly throughout history that i have no idea wtf is real anymore. but nonetheless this thread definately "shed some light" on this whole YHWH/Lucifer argument. There is a whole lot more to this topic than most christians will admit. I considered myself a "christian" just a few months ago, but learing what i've been learning these past few months has completely made me unsure just who the good guys are.

Lucifer is the counterfeit Christ.

Many people misquote Albert Pike on Lucifer. The only quote that is not a forgery from him on the topic of Lucifer is in his book, Morals and Dogma. Let me put this quote in context. It is a warning to the 19th degree mason not to follow Lucifer. He also refers to Revelation of John (Apocalypse) many times in this chapter. Pike was a Christian, regardless of what you hear about Him. Any other quote about him mentioning Lucifer is a forgery. Any quote about him mentioning World Wars is a verified forgery. I've read Morals and Dogma several times. What he says about Lucifer is accurate. He also mentions Christ as the true bright and morning star, as mentioned in the Bible. Here's the quote form the book.

"Therefore faint not, nor be weary in well -doing! Be not discouraged at men's apathy, nor disgusted with their follies, nor tired of their indifference! Care not for returns and results;but see only what there is to do, and do it, leaving the results to God! Soldier of the Cross! Sworn Knight of Justice, Truth, and Toleration! Good Knight and True!be patient and work! The Apocalypse, that sublime Kabalistic and prophetic Summary of all the occult figures, divides its images into three Septenaries, after each of which there is silence in Heaven. There
are Seven Seals to be opened, that is to say, Seven mysteries to know, and Seven difficulties to overcome, Seven Trumpets to sound, Seven cups to empty.

The Apocalypse (Revelation, Last Chapter of Bible) is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apothesis (great divine significance) of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not ! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired. The Apocalypse, indeed, is a book as obscure as the Sohar. It is written hieroglyphically with numbers and images; and the Apostle of ten appeals to the intelligence of the Initiated. "Let him who hath knowledge, understand! let him who understands, calculate !" he of ten says, after an allegory or the mention of a number. Saint John, the favorite Apostle, and the Depositary of all the Secrets of the Saviour, therefore did not write to be understood by the multitude."

YES. Pike was a Christian. Lucifer is the destroyer of feeble, sensual or selfish souls. Christ is faith, hope and love. Doubt it not!

Originally posted by kaiode1
WOOOOOOWWW. I'm really digging this thread, because it's given me a lot of new insight as to how i feel about "lucifer" now...Maybe i am brainwashed by society into believing that YHWH is the good one and lucifer is bad. it makes sense that the bad guy would try and demonize the good guy. It's just so hard to make a logical decision because facts have been twisted so horribly throughout history that i have no idea wtf is real anymore. but nonetheless this thread definately "shed some light" on this whole YHWH/Lucifer argument. There is a whole lot more to this topic than most christians will admit. I considered myself a "christian" just a few months ago, but learing what i've been learning these past few months has completely made me unsure just who the good guys are.

religion taught me to be ashamed, afraid of demons, and to criticize others. It also taught me that it is ok to wear gold and carry a bejeweled scepter while people die of starvation in this world.

I don't think I've heard such an eloquent rendition of my feelings on the matter in quite a while. The man is a brilliant speaker. I applaud him for his rant, and you for posting it.
S&F,
Q&A

reply to post by SuperiorEd


and what did he say about the seven thunders ?

so, it seems to me that lucifer had the title, and lost it to yeshua.
and that it denotes ownership OF the bright and morning star.
or perhaps someone didn't understand the difference between owning
it and having the "keys" to it.

reply to post by undo


Dear Undo,
Wonderful! More intellectual conversation without name calling, I love it! So ok onto the topic we're discussing here. I have spent a rather large amount of time reading the transcripted Sumeria texts. I also read Zitchin's take on the texts which .. well can be taken at face value, or taken to be a romanticised novel version.

Anyway, what I find rather intriguing is the similarity between the Sumeria "stories" and then what we see in the Bible, specifically the Old Testament. It just can't be coincidence, so my take is that it pretty much got handed down, word of mouth of textually and then rehashed into a more palatable version at the time. Now whether the stories are factual or mythical is the big question here. Personally I don't think the Sumerians would have had the impotus that we have in today's society to make the link to Sci-fi programs, TV programs etc.. so why would they write those stories? If you take the time to read through them, they are basically the best and earliest version of Sci-fi literature ever.

Did the events depicted happen, where they real? I firmly believe so. This is why I ask for those now believing something which is only 2000 years old to truly question the content and message being conveyed. I don't ever state I think Jesus wasn't real. I do however believe that any message he had to convey was totally bastardised and spun so as to make us easier to control. Religion, or belief in something has been around since the ealiest of times.. I think it is ingrained in humanity to gaze at the stars and wonder. I also think that somewhere along the lines we know there "is something" more to our menial existence.

My last point is rather simple, and follows a lot of other more qualified thinkers out there. I believe we have a far richer history than what we are led to believe. I feel that for centuries TPTB have been hiding, manipulating and filtering the information we, the common folk, are privy to.

Thank you for the time to respond, I appreciate the communication.

Regards,
T