The Bible Is A Forgery

reply to post by leejohnbarnes



Sorry to step in your conversation but need to clear 2 things up.

He didn't say he was the Jewish Messiah did he - in fact it could be argued he was specifically repudiating that he was the messiah by reaffirming his simple humanity.

#1 There was only one Messiah God foretold so yes Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.
#2 Jesus said him self he is the Messiah.

And i would have to agree with allot of what NOTurTypical said like The OT has everything to do with Christianity but for other reasons as well.

And you 2 should try to be nice about this. No need for name calling.

THE MOST HIGH GOD (YAHWEH) is a SPIRIT you must be SPIRIT FILLED to understand the bible it wont make any sense to a human mind and thats why there is so much confusion, lucifer does not want GODS CHILDREN to be spirit filled so he has men with his spirit in them create religon ,christianity, catholics, and what ever other doctrin of demons he has made up and then he uses his seeds to disguise as pastors teachers rabbis and decives the flock, thats why JESUS said you can only please the FATHER in SPIRIT and in TRUTH, when a person is born again he is renewed in his spirit and takes off the old self (thinking with his human mind) and puts on the new self (thinking with his christ or spirit mind) then the whole bible is seen and understood in the LIGHT and truth, this is how GOD made it anybody who refuses to become a spirit or be filled with the HOLY SPIRIT will always be an atheiest or bound up in religon which JESUS says is POISON and he said only a few will enter my FATHERS KINGDOM, so there are alot of religous people who think there going to heaven because they pretend to be christians on sunday then sin like hell the rest of the week, but the bible says only those who are SEALED with his spirit will inherit the kingdom so hell is gonna be a lot bigger than you unbelivers know!!!! you can fool your friends and family but you cant fool the FATHER WHO SITS IN HEAVEN!!!

The fact that it is so hard to find out where it comes from is telling in itself.

Secondly if anyone were to actually read the Bible and say it makes sense would be ever more so.

We have around 1000 different churches giving differing opinions of what is going on...and hilariously arguing over various parts of the texts.

If you believe that this book is a work of some "Creator" , then you deserve to go around for thousands of more lifetimes... and you will.

How many verses are totally ignored ?? Or totally translated as "we need to look at this in the context of the time" ??

I think the real conspiracy is that systems of religion have been formed around all manner of this book, and the negativity has been translated into "Positivity and Truth".

Flat out the most ridiculous book i have ever read when one looks at it as a whole,,, which is precisely why every denomination highly ignores over 95% of it.

You have to believe in some amazingly radical and disgusting things just to validate some of the others,, and totally brainwash yourself into forgetting the rest of the verses are even there... good luck to you all that believe in it.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by leejohnbarnes

 

The fact that most of the gnostic gospels arise 1000 years after the first new testament texts makes me believe that the gnostic gospels are the fakes & forgeries.

And most of the gnostic gospels actually support the content of earlier texts but portray them in a different light.

They date around 50-300 CE.

If anything, they are older or about the same age as the "canonical" scripture.

Not even close, sorry.

The only Gnostic text which is a possible contemporary to the Canonical Gospels (or to many of the Epistles, which predate the Gospels,) is the Gospel of Thomas, or, to state it a little clearer, parts of Thomas. As I noted earlier, Thomas appears to be a hybrid of accurate sayings of Jesus, in cruder (and therefore, likely more true to his actual words) form, along with things that he clearly did not say.

How do we know this, and how are we able to state that the reminder of Gnostic Christian texts dates to the mid Second Century? Because we can date the evolution of the Gnostic Christian religion, and the beliefs that are espoused by the texts in question represent those of a much more mature religion than was present in the First Century. In other words, beliefs such as those in The Gospel of Truth simply didn't exist before Second Century theologians such as Marcion and Valentinus came to the fore.

I would disagree with chr0naut that the Gnostic texts are from 1000 years after Christ, but there is no way that they were written when you think they were.

I don't see where this guy is gathering his evidence?

It seems like he is just reiterating what was said in Zeitgeist and in fact he probably was one of the sources for that video. Very few scholars take seriously the whole Horus, Krishna, Buddha being the inspiration for Christianity. There are way more differences between them than there are similarities.

Yes the Roman Empire did choose what was in the New Testament and only chose documents that supported their point of view. In fact Constantine chose the christian sect of Catholicism to use for the new centralized religion because of its way of conducting itself through hierarchy. However I don't think they rewrote everything, the gospels existed long before the Romans got a hold of them. One question I have is why would the Romans adopt this new religion and completely throw out all previous Pagan/Roman beliefs if their intention was to deceive the world with forged documents?

I mean it's no secret the Romans really liked partying and having sex with anyone and anything, why would they suddenly choose one of the most conservative Christian sects and throw that part of their culture out, if they were manipulating the scriptures? Wouldn't they have tried to keep that stuff if their intention was to deceive?

I sometimes think people give the hierarchy too much credit. Not all oligarchies were that manipulative and greedy.

reply to post by leejohnbarnes


I always found it interesting that Christ purportedly had 12 disciples, but only 4 of them decided to record Christ's existence. I am, of course, referring to the 4 main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul

But after learning about the Roman Council of Nicaea I was blown away. I remember learning that the original books of the Bible were many and varied. Including books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Judas...etc

So the Romans formed their Council of Nicaea and a bunch of high ranking Roman Officers decided what canon would be added into their state-sanctioned "Bible." They saw the Christian religion as an excellent tool of control.

Even today, the King James version of the Bible, one of the world's most popular copies, was just a condensed version of the original Roman Catholic Bible.

After going back and taking a look at the books that got left out of the original Bible by the Romans, particularly the book of Thomas, the picture you gain of Christ is very different from what we have been taught. And I can understand why the Romans wanted to brand the Gnostics as heretics, because the Gnostics practiced a spiritual freedom that the Romans could not control.

Good thread.

Well to put it in simple terms for you, mankind has renounced God from the beginning, The devil has fooled man from the first time in the garden of eden, This is just another trick the devil is trying to pull on mankind, but it will never work, the lords word lasts FOREVER!

reply to post by GrinchNoMore

If you believe that this book is a work of some "Creator" , then you deserve to go around for thousands of more lifetimes... and you will.

Christians say that the Bible is the infallible word of God. They also claim that God is all knowing.

If the Bible were written by God, a truly supreme being would have done it very differently.

He would have written explicit instructions for humans to follow, written in every language that man has ever spoken, and will ever speak. He would have written those instructions on material that could not be destroyed, since he is God he could just create new elements; and he would have placed his instructions in multiple places around the globe to make sure that every human had access to them.

The Bible is extremely broad and vague. Take for instance that Christians believe you have to be married before you have sex, because the Bible says you have to be married.

If marriage was a prerequisite for sexual activity, then the Bible should have contained a step-by-step bullet list of instructions explicitly detailing what constitutes a marriage...and how two people go about getting married in the first place.

But there is nothing like that in the Bible, and just the fact that people can disagree on interpretation proves that men with agendas penned the Bible.

Either God was extremely short-sighted, or, the Bible was not written by a supreme being.

The idea that God had to "inspire" men to write his word is also a terrible argument.

God created the Earth and everything in it, then somehow forgot how to read and write.

Please.

I don't know about the rest of the fellow Christians in this thread, but... it looks like we somehow wound up in a parallel universe where research doesn't matter, fallacies are facts, and unbelievers just keep repeating the same fiction over and over and over no matter how many times we refute them. And all they come back with is "No you didn't!"

Personally, as soon as I see the flames and fallacies I just don't bother. Then they complain that I don't want to talk... which is true, because there is no "talking" to these people; they only know how to flame and repeat ridiculous, refuted, cut-and-pasted nonsense. Even this little rant of mine will only result in more of the same reactionary hate and demands for responses or they will declare themselves the winners by default.

There's planting seeds, and then there's throwing them onto concrete.

Anybody who wants to talk first has to demonstrate the ability to comprehend the value of scholarly research and tell it from Dan Brown or Wiki, then act like rational adults and treat others the way you want to be treated. But of course I've just said all that for nothing.

Flame on.

You know what I find interesting? Whenever atheist find and show proof and evidence that works such as the bible were plagiarized works of propaganda in a simple effort to wake people up and enlighten them it's immediately considered an attack on Christianity? Yet shoving their doctrine down our throats, in the name of "saving us", telling us we're following the path of Satan if we don't believe what they're preaching is perfectly acceptable?

Just an observation... Not an attack...

Originally posted by Terrormaster
You know what I find interesting? Whenever atheist find and show proof and evidence that works such as the bible were plagiarized works of propaganda in a simple effort to wake people up and enlighten them it's immediately considered an attack on Christianity? Yet shoving their doctrine down our throats, in the name of "saving us", telling us we're following the path of Satan if we don't believe what they're preaching is perfectly acceptable?

Just an observation... Not an attack...

No atheist has shown "proof and evidence" in this thread that the Bible was "plagiarized works of propaganda". Not even close. And even atheists know that name calling and insults are attacks, not "proof and evidence". So even in this "not an attack" we see false charges and equivocation, with an added bit of "let me enlighten you" to display their condescension. And this is why it's a waste of time.

Just an observation... not an attack. ;-)

reply to post by adjensen


The Nag Hammadi Library was buried around the time of the Council of Nicaea and because of that council. This means it's at least 1600 years old and at least as old as what's in most Bibles today. The main point of that council was to expunge those texts and ones like it. My numbers were valid enough.

Besides, what makes men the deciding factor on what he said or didn't say? Or what he taught or didn't teach? None of them were alive around the time he walked this earth. The book of Revelations was also almost made non-canon as well (and quite possibly other books that are in the current Bible).

I don't like the idea of human hands trying to rape something just because they didn't agree with it. It's fine to not accept, but it's not fine for mankind to decide what or what is not acceptable for others. This goes against God's gift to us of free will. By his loving grace, no man can take that away from us... but they still try to this day to do just that.

Control has been the agenda and it's foolish to think that that agenda hasn't survived to today.

Originally posted by dalan.
But after learning about the Roman Council of Nicaea I was blown away. I remember learning that the original books of the Bible were many and varied. Including books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Judas...etc

So the Romans formed their Council of Nicaea and a bunch of high ranking Roman Officers decided what canon would be added into their state-sanctioned "Bible." They saw the Christian religion as an excellent tool of control.

Good grief.

THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE! What does it take to get that fact through some of the thick heads around here? I can understand people getting confused by the fiction of The Da Vinci Code but, come on. Spend fifteen minutes reading an actual factual accounting of the Council and even the most dimwitted person will realize that it had nothing to do with the Bible.

And, as an aside, the Romans already had a quite effective means of control -- it was called the Roman army, so they had no need of Christianity. You'd be better served to argue that Christianity caused the downfall of Rome. That, at least, required a voluminous work by Augustine (City of God) to refute.

Originally posted by Jax27
"this post is another useless attack on Christianity" - I hate to be blunt or offensive, but there is no such thing as a useless attack on any religion. Religion should be met with hostility and violence. Superstition might be the downfall of man unless we stop it.

Really? Hostility and violence? Come on.

You've got to be kidding me! I am assuming you are either agnostic or atheist, so please correct me if I am wrong here, (as I don't want any nasty words/arguments! ) but if you are, you perpetuate that stereotype that Atheists don't have morals/aren't good people/etc. I don't care what the cause is, violence and hostility NEVER solves anything.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by adjensen

 

...I don't like the idea of human hands trying to rape something just because they didn't agree with it. It's fine to not accept, but it's not fine for mankind to decide what or what is not acceptable for others. This goes against God's gift to us of free will. By his loving grace, no man can take that away from us... but they still try to this day to do just that...

edit on 17/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)

I completely agree with you on this one. It is not right for another to tell someone else what is acceptable...though I do believe in absolutes....say, such as killing people. (That one should be obvious )

reply to post by leejohnbarnes

Let me ask you this - What do you gain from copying and pasting another site's content, but doing so without going into an analytical critique to support your theory? He is correct because...?

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
This is a critique on Christianity, in order to liberate the Gnosis and to finally allow the teachings of the Gnostic Christ to liberate Christians from the lies of the demiurge and the Roman Empire.

The Second Coming of Christ has already occurred.

...and, how do you know this to be true? Where are you coming up with this information? What are your points of comparison?

in response to the OP:
they had a couple words to describe
your theory. One is blasphemy and
the other is heresy.

I like my KJV very much thank you.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by adjensen

 

The Nag Hammadi Library was buried around the time of the Council of Nicaea and because of that council. This means it's at least 1600 years old and at least as old as what's in most Bibles today. The main point of that council was to expunge those texts and ones like it. My numbers were valid enough.

No, they aren't. That's like going up the lottery commission with a ticket that says "10-23-25-32-40" and saying that it's "valid enough" to merit the prize won by ticket "11-24-26-33-41". The texts in the Nag Hammadi archive are Fourth Century Coptic translations of Greek texts which date back to about 150AD. They are not Coptic translations of Greek texts which date back to 50AD. When one is talking about historical facts, a 100 year error is not "valid enough."

Besides, what makes men the deciding factor on what he said or didn't say? Or what he taught or didn't teach?

What was considered Canonical was generally subjected to the tests of:

1) Is the text consistent with other accepted texts?
2) Is the text generally accepted and in common use in the Christian community?
3) Does the text have an Apostolic connection?

As noted, even by critics of Christianity, Gnostic texts are not consistent with other scripture. In addition, they were not generally accepted, and had no connection to the Apostles. Contrary to some beliefs, texts such as The Treatise on the Resurrection were NEVER considered for inclusion in the New Testament, because it fails all three of these tests, many others, and failing one is enough to reject it.

The book of Revelations was also almost made non-canon as well (and quite possibly other books that are in the current Bible).

Yes, there has been controversy regarding pretty much everything, apart from the four Gospels and most of the Epistles of Paul. The authorship of the other Epistles has been called into question, and the Revelation of John is viewed by some to be a Jewish apocalyptic text, which meant something different then than it does today. But, despite the controversy, they are accepted as being Canonical.

It is an Orthodox Christian Bible, so us Orthodox Christians reserve the right to say what's appropriate to be in it. If you want to go off and create your own bible, with your own approved texts, knock yourself out, no one is going to stop you (though no one will likely listen to you, either.)

I don't like the idea of human hands trying to rape something just because they didn't agree with it. It's fine to not accept, but it's not fine for mankind to decide what or what is not acceptable for others.

Ignore, for the moment, Christendom post Constantine. At the time of the peak of the Gnostic Christians, heresy was treated very simply -- the heretics were denounced and kicked out of the church. No burning at the stake, no banning of books, just a simple "this is not Christianity, and if you want to be a follower of Christ, steer clear of these guys." Even today, no one is telling you not to read the Gnostic texts (heck, I actively encourage people to do so, if for no other reason than hardly anyone seems to understand what they were on about,) we're just saying that, historically and theologically, the Gnostic world view is not congruent with the person of Jesus Christ, so claiming that Christ was the Divine Messenger, the bringer of gnosis, is not an accurate statement.

reply to post by adjensen


No. Where have you been? Constantine created Roman Catholicism to spare his Empire from fracturing into chaos. He used his state religion as a tool to unite and appease both Christians and Pagans of old Rome. Thus the many, many persisting Pagan traditions within Christianity. If Constantine hadn't have crafted Catholicism, Rome would have fallen then and there in his time. No, what eventually destroyed Rome was its overspread military and corrupt government. The German barbarians finished their Empire off and it had nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, one could even hypothesize that the elite inner circle of the Empire manufactured the fall of Rome to bring about the Holy Roman Empire and the papacy later on.