The Bible Is A Forgery

Dont anyone of you "Believers" find it a rather strange God
who became a author and publisher to get his word out??

reply to post by anti72


He was not reincarnated in the traditional sense into an unborn fetus. The story is that Jesus reincarnated into a new body that was already the same age as the one crucified. Same soul, just introduced into a new adult body.

Jesus married Mary Magdalene at the wedding feast at Cana. By the time of Jesus' crucifixion, Mary was pregnant with their first daughter Sarah.

Mary Magdalene went to France accompanied by Jesus (in reincarnated form), Joseph of Arimathea (brother of Jesus), Martha (sister of Mary), Lazarus (brother of Mary), Salome (sister of Jesus), Joanna (sister of Jesus), Mary (sister of Jesus) and Mary (mother of Jesus). In other words, the party that went to France consisted of members of the two families of the married couple Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

In France, Mary and Jesus had a son (also called Jesus, or, rather, Yehoshua), another daughter (Tamar), and a second son Joseph (Yosef).

Jesus' secret teaching to all of those who went with him to France was that when he had prophesied that he would rise again, he actually meant that he would be reborn via reincarnation. (Normally, but not necessarily, reincarnation takes place via babies, not adults.) Jesus explained that he had no choice but to use the language of resurrection rather than reincarnation in his public pronouncements because that's what Judaism taught and it would have been suicidal to teach a gentile Greek and Eastern doctrine of reincarnation.

Jesus' original plan was to fake his death on the cross and then emerge "resurrected" from his tomb. In the religious mania that would surely ensue, the Romans would be forced out of Judea by a huge and unstoppable popular uprising, Jesus would depart the country forever (he would claim to have "ascended to heaven"), and his brother James the Just would assume the role of the Davidic priest-king.

Over time, if it were deemed advantageous, the new teaching of reincarnation would be introduced to the kingdom of Israel. Otherwise, it would remain a secret teaching amongst the elite.

Have another look at Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting The Last Supper:




There are four theories about the figure to the left of Jesus Christ as we look at the picture:

1) It is John, the Beloved Disciple (the conventional theory).
2) It is Mary Magdalene, wife of Jesus (let's call it the Dan Brown theory).

3) It is the Beloved Disciple defined as a coded hybrid of Mary Magdalene and her brother Lazarus.

4) It is the young man into whom Jesus Christ reincarnated after his death. The idea that they are the same but different is coded in the fact that their clothing is identical, but where Jesus has red, the other has blue, and where Jesus has blue the other has red i.e. they complement each other perfectly. They make a single whole: two in one. Da Vinci is providing a visual representation that Jesus wasn't resurrected at all, but reincarnated.

Originally posted by Badgered1
In case you hadn't noticed, both XXXXX [my edit for not going after individuals] and I are both fairly well studied in church history, and are citing generally accepted facts.

What I'm failing to understand here is that the OP notes that church history may have been distorted for means other than spreading the "true word of god."

History doesn't generally work like that, and we all too often place ourselves, our values and our abilities on people of the past who had none of it. To fabricate Christianity in the Fourth Century would have required, not merely the forgery of the books of the Bible, but the forgery of many other texts, letters and physical evidence which preceded the fabrication but which reference and support it. Indeed, one would need to forge heretical data, texts which outline Christian beliefs and refute them.

Yes, you can change peoples' perspectives on what happened in history, and you can attempt historical revisionism. But you generally can't get away with it, unless people want you to, because there is too much contradictory evidence to your revisionism.

To protest against the teachings of the church of Rome has, historically, been quite detrimental. Gnosticism may have been the first to question these teachings, and the persecution seems quite ordinary for the Church. Martin Luther wasn't the first protestant. The Church of Rome has a storied past of their treatment of those who would question their word. There's some 'facts' to check.

From an historical perspective, Gnosticism wasn't even close to being the first heresy -- there were a number of early "alternative Christianities", with a wide variety of differences with the proto-Orthodox Church. Was there one God? Two? Three? Twelve? Three hundred? Followers of Christ held a vast array of individual and group opinions, but that was a part of sorting out what Orthodoxy would wind up being.

I use the term "proto-Orthodoxy" for a good reason -- at the time of the Gnostic Christians, there really wasn't a "Church", per se. There was a group of small churches, led by ministers, which were spread over a large geographical area, and were overseen by Bishops, who were responsible for what was orthodox teaching in their area. Different churches used different texts -- different Gospels, different Epistles, different apocalyptic literature. If you consider the state of communication, the persecution of Christians by both the Romans and the Jews, and the lack of standards (no Bible, no Augustinian theology, no liturgical calendar, etc.) the diversity shouldn't be too surprising.

As a result, in this time, there was no persecution of heretics by the Church (to the contrary, there was persecution OF the Church by the Romans.) Heresy (which means, literally, "wrong teaching",) was dealt with as it is outlined by both Christ and Paul in the Bible -- you try to convince them that they are wrong, if they persist, you bring them up before the Church in an effort to correct them, and if they still refuse, you kick them out of the church. That's it -- no burning at the stake, no collecting their books and destroying them -- you just got them out of the community.

Some, like the Ebionites (who believed that Christ was the Messiah, but you still had to adhere to the Torah Law,) the Marcionites (who believed exactly the opposite -- that the Law was invalid, and Christ was anti-Jewish,) the Donatists (who believed that the Orthodox Church was one that was disassociated with Rome), the Docetists (who believed that Christ was a spirit, not a man, and did not suffer and die on the cross) and the Gnostics went off and founded their own churches, with their own Bishops, Priests, scripture and so forth. Others abandoned their views and returned to the proto-Orthodox Church.

This attitude towards heretics, of course, is reflective of the power of the Church at the time, and once they had the power, they tended to be pretty ruthless in suppressing opposition, although for the most part, there was always that initial step of trying to convince people of their error. Luther did not set out to establish a new Church -- he wanted to reform the one that already existed. It was only after Rome rejected his tenets that the schism (which was, effectively, him getting kicked out of the Church, just like the Gnostics) occurred.

Unfortunately for conspiratorial types, core church Orthodoxy had largely been settled by the time of Constantine, and the Christian church that became the church of Rome did so because it was the largest (by far) of the Christian sects. One may argue many points regarding the reason that Orthodoxy became what it is, whether due to luck, smarter theologians, better arguments or something else, but for one who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient God, it's easy enough to say that it is what it is because that's the way that it's supposed to be.

reply to post by linux2216


Jesus showed his hands and side to "doubting Thomas", yet could walk through walls. Clearly he was not reincarnated into another mortal body, but his own mortal body was transformed. And this same transformation awaits all who follow Jesus:

35 But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body...

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body... 49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
(1 Cor. 15)

Originally posted by jimbo999
Biblical scholars have been saying exactly what the OP states for centuries... This is not really news to anyone who has actually studied the works of real biblical scholars.

No Biblical scholar (of any repute, anyway,) says what the OP is claiming -- that the New Testament was written at the direction of the Roman government. That is complete nonsense, and any academic who made such a claim would be laughed out of whatever institution had the misfortune of having them on their staff.

Rather, claims like that are made by people like D.M. Murdoch (who writes as "Achyra S" and was the source of that lengthy unattributed quote by the OP on page one of the thread) who are not historians, are not biblical scholars (Murdoch, if memory serves, has an undergraduate degree in Greek Studies or something like that) and who use shoddy sources and their own imaginations to make ridiculous claims which are easily refuted with historical evidence.

Doesn't keep chumps from buying her books, though.

Only 4 of the disiples are in the bible?
the other 8 would not sell out.

Originally posted by dalan.
Originally posted by Gibborium
I am sorry but I cannot let this pass without saying something. The four Gospels are, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not "and Paul."

Anyway, my point was, its just odd to me that Christ's other disciples did not record their own Gospel's.

In actually, there is no hard evidence that any of them did. None of the four Gospels identify their author, the names are attached because of tradition, not because of testimony. And of the four names, two aren't even Apostles -- Mark was the companion of Peter, and Luke was the companion of Paul. But that's hardly odd.

Again, put things into historical context. Most people of the time were illiterate, and the fishermen and other working people that Jesus had as disciples would have little reason to need to read and write. The most obvious Apostle to have the ability was Matthew -- as a tax collector, he would need to be literate. John was young in the time of Christ, and lived to an old age, so it is also likely that if he wasn't literate in 33AD, he would have had both the time and the motivation to become so later in life.

In addition, people didn't write anything "casually". Letters, never mind books, were rare things, and it speaks to the reverence that the early Church had for them that we still have copies of the letters of Paul and the other disciples in the Bible. Writing anything was usually a process of hiring a scribe, dictating what you wanted to say, and having that one copy carried by hand to where ever it needed to go. Expensive, slow and risky.

There are a number of ways to look at the Synoptic Problem, but my personal belief is that there was an early Gospel, written in Hebrew by the Apostle Matthew, which is now lost to us. The Gospel of Matthew which is in our Bible is likely a version of that. Mark is a work that utilizes both the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the oral stories of Peter. There is sufficient evidence that the author of Luke and Acts of the Apostles was, in fact, Luke, the companion of Paul, and a physician (thus, certain to be literate.) Luke states that he used other sources for his text, so it is likely that he, too, used Matthew as a primary source, supplemented by Mark's Gospel, anecdotal things that he picked up from Paul, and probably other things, as well.

The Gospel of John is an independent work that clearly reflects both a more mature Christian perspective, but also a more personal approach, indicating that the author was relaying things he experienced and saw.

Understand that, in the very early days of the Church, it was a pretty widespread belief that Christ was returning pretty much "any day now", and so there wasn't much reason to write stuff down. If the early Church had the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, a "Sayings Gospel" (as per some of the Gospel of Thomas) and some letters of theological clarification, that was probably good enough.

Originally posted by Apleness
The Bible says something entirely different. ? What I just mention is from the bible..

No, what you mentioned was laced with things you made up. I'll bold those:

God created Adam and Eve and they immediately spoke a language which is not known and god created a tree which fruits you couldn't eat just because... The man has the "adam apple" in the neck because god came when he was swelling. Then a angel was called to protect the garden with a flaming sword, cool the world was just created and the weapon for defense was a sword with flames nice imagination. God is every where and knows all but the angel let Eve enter in the garden if she didn't tail on god yeah.. and so son so on.. To many to write them all..

1-- Utter fiction, textually and medically. You might also be surprised to learn that men really don't have one less rib than women, that's another ridiculous fable people made up about the Bible.
2-- Imagination is not in the text, and only by presuming it to be a fable can you say otherwise; that is, you're using the fallacy of circular reasoning: we know the Bible is filled with fables because it's filled with fables.
3-- What angel? The one with the sword? (There were two, BTW) The angel(s) guarding Eden was the LAST thing that happened, AFTER Adam and Eve left, and nobody was offered the chance to return under any conditions (whatever "tail on god yeah" means).

Yep... too many to write them all.

This is yet another piece of evidence that most who criticize the Bible have no clue what's in it, no clue about how translation works, no clue about ancient history, and no clue about how to tell a real scholar from a fake.

reply to post by Jax27

Religion should be met with hostility and violence.

And this is one reason religion has the power it has today. Because of this attitude. The more you persecute them, the more they feel they are right in their beliefs. It says so in the bible itself. It does nothing but fuel the fire.

reply to post by leejohnbarnes


Well, I guess you got it all figured out then huh? Good luck when you stand before Jesus Christ at the Judgement, you better hope your right. So how do you go to heaven when you die if no one pays for your sins?

A nicely done post, i remember another book i read years ago by Ahmed Osmond , no relation to donnie or marie

Originally posted by Jim Scott
While I do appreciate facts, it seems this post is another useless attack on Christianity, for whatever reason. For centuries, attacks have been made against the Christian church. ATS members spend a lot of their time and talents working up these attacks. I suppose there is some cleansing that they feel if they get it off their chest, but I have yet to see any substantial information.

"Substantial information" is too much to ask of these haters. They claim to be "enlightened" and "free thinking" people who have rejected myths. What they are in fact are tortured souls with little to do but hate those who have committed theirselves to helping their fellow man.

The athiests who start these threads ahould be out partying down if they feel there is no God. I mean, after all, their time is short and they have nothing to look forward to. But rather than immerse themselves in self gratification, they bang their drums of hate towards believers. Having no hobbies, they become boring slobs, no one wishes to be around while they rant their tivial trype.

Originally posted by romanmel
"Substantial information" is too much to ask of these haters. They claim to be "enlightened" and "free thinking" people who have rejected myths. What they are in fact are tortured souls with little to do but hate those who have committed theirselves to helping their fellow man.

The athiests who start these threads ahould be out partying down if they feel there is no God. I mean, after all, their time is short and they have nothing to look forward to. But rather than immerse themselves in self gratification, they bang their drums of hate towards believers. Having no hobbies, they become boring slobs, no one wishes to be around while they rant their tivial trype.

This is the "elephant in the livingroom" about atheists in general. They are more obsessed with religion than most religious people, esp. Christianity. They point at us for allegedly feeling superior but then turn around and say what you mentioned: that they are the enlightened and free thinking ones who have matured and don't need these "psychological crutches". Some will say that they only have the purest motives for going after Christians all the time, that they just want to help us, but this only reinforces the evidence that they consider themselves superior. After all, if Christians are to be branded conceited for saying other faiths are wrong, then let the atheists be judged by their own standards.

I agree, they should be out partying and spreading all this joy and peace they claim to possess, and start actually building that utopian world where religion isn't allowed... oh wait, that's been tried in places like Russia and China and N. Korea. They really should turn their energy toward making a poster child society somewhere.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Well said!

I like it when the athiests say they are just trying to "educate" us poor misled Christians who just don't understand history or science. Yet their "education" is the same old trype that goes back severl hundred years that was soundly debunked by scholars centuries to decades ago.

This thread is a good example. The OP says "The Bible is a Forgery". What evidence does he present? His own personally held beliefs. ......

What a waste of time!

Well, now this is a topic I most certainly can agree to. Perhaps the first version of the bible made sense, but now, there are more contradictions than any politician could ever hope to create. I've always believed the bible was a fake, now I can use the link provided as my proof on the argument.

What most atheist are doing is telling the Christians what atheists them selves believe Christians believe.

They always talk about their own fairytale believe stories as if they were christian believes.

If atheists don't believe or don't know how to believe, they shouldn't try to educate other people who do believe.

That is like a person who doesn't have a pilot license trying to educate a pilot in how to fly.

Originally posted by spy66
What most atheist are doing is telling the Christians what atheists them selves believe Christians believe.

They always talk about their own fairytale believe stories as if they were christian believes.

If atheists don't believe or don't know how to believe, they shouldn't try to educate other people who do believe.

That is like a person who doesn't have a pilot license trying to educate a pilot in how to fly.

Or as I like to put it, "When non-Christians tell Christians how to act like Christians, they act just like the Christians who are not acting like Christians!" (more

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by spy66
What most atheist are doing is telling the Christians what atheists them selves believe Christians believe.

They always talk about their own fairytale believe stories as if they were christian believes.

If atheists don't believe or don't know how to believe, they shouldn't try to educate other people who do believe.

That is like a person who doesn't have a pilot license trying to educate a pilot in how to fly.

Or as I like to put it, "When non-Christians tell Christians how to act like Christians, they act just like the Christians who are not acting like Christians!" (more

I liked this one, why didn't you use this one

How can anyone look at the space shuttle and say “Design!”, yet look at the people who designed it and say “Accident!”?

you know this is all speculation from both sides - neither can prove that God exists or he doesn't. We have no idea what God is "Our Creator". I tend to follow science, they seem to be doing a better job than religion in search of how we came to be. There is too much hypocrisy surrounding religion.

The reference to the beams of light is also found in the Druidic religion when Menw the Aged was given the three words of God as three beams of light. The beams were given the meaning of O I V, the three meanings of God this being Love ( O ) , Knowledge ( I ) and Truth ( V ). This is also the secret name of Christ - IAU.

Let me add more meaning to this image...OIV...Life Is Family...OIV...Love GOD First...This Brings The Knowledge of Truth...IAU..I Am You..Without You There Is No Me...Without Me There Is No You..The Why...W...From Two Families That Become One...The Spirit/Soul...The Last Super Is Indeed Two Before It Became One...The Last Supper Of Duality...The Oneness To Be...

The Y My Yoke Is Easy For It Is Three Beams Of Light...From One There Was Two...From The Rib Of Adam Given To Eve...Y...From The Family Above To U...There Is Much More To The Story Than Meets The Eye...Much More to the Story than Reaches the Ear...(O)...One Must Stand Up and Put Himself Inside This True Line of Christ...This Is Done From The Inside...This Puts You Within The Gate Of Light...I have Been In This Light Three Times In Just This Life...

The Gate In Written Form...

GOD(O)l8lCHRISTMANWOMANCHILDRENANIMALS 38 Letters Is l l...Is The Gate Or The Door That Is Open To U To Step Into...

Some Call It The ALL Seeing Eye...The Pathway To GOD...But There IS More To The Story Once You Have Entered The Gateway...

Let's Add Two Names To This Line...For The 40 Days And 40 Nights Of Time...

GOD(O)l8lCHRISTADAMLILITHCHILDRENANIMALS Is Now 40...Using Adam as The First Man and Using Lilith as The First Woman...You Can Use Sophia as You See She Is a Six Letter Word Also...


If You Took This Basic Foundation of 40 ALL Squared... You Would Get The Secret Of The Celtic Cross...Your GOAL...40x40x40x40...The Four Corners Of Creation...Omnidirectional With All The Things GOD has Created...

Let's Look Again At How Smart Leonardo Was... His Image of Man With His Arms Held Out...The Linear Line I Gave You...The Gateway...The Right Angle...90 Degrees UP...40 Squared UP...

S
L
A
M
I
N
A
N
E
R
D
L
I
H
C
H
T
I
L
I
L
M
A
D
A
T
S
I
R
H
C
l
8
l
(
O
)
D
O
GOD(O)l8lCHRISTADAMLILITHCHILDRENANIMALS As Above As Below 101 and 202..V...Love From TWO...

Standing IN The Mirror as Leonardo Turn Your Left ARM UP...In That Picture You See Yourself Framed In the Upper Right Side Of GOD...

Truth...The Awakening...The Cardinal Points All Are S's Finished From The Outside...19 is the position of the S... The G Is 7...Used Four Times...As This Is The Fourth World Coming To A Turning Point...28...When TWO BECOME ONE INSIDE AND OUT...

I Hope This Made Sense To U...

And To Show Some More Truth For Some Follow That Lilith Instead Of SOPHIA...Lilith Is Darkness...The Dark Side For You Must Overcome Evil Also...

40 Squared UP...1600 The Address Of The White House...Of Lilith's Lies and Her Cube Of Saturn...That Black Box Of Evil That So Many Worship...It Is Sad Few See As I...

Peace...