The Bible Is A Forgery

I agree with this whole post, For once in my life i could never understand why people will follow a book, and why the # would they, All i saw was a old book that people followed I'm now 24yrs old and i couldn't somehow bring myself into believing that there is a god.

I had people at school telling me do you believe in god, because if you don't your going to hell, All i could say was shut the # up fool how the # do you know, and what i would say to them is if you think its a better place why don't you go top yourself now and find out because surely its a place better this this earth. Anyhow getting off topic.

The Bible.....# The Bible.# all the beliefs # the Propaganda # the brain washing.

It cracks me up how people say beleive in god, all i can say is. where the # is he, can i feel him, can i see him can i touch him? Then they come out with the...."hes all around you".
I'm thinking to myself # this bitch is crazy or seeing # lmao.

What i do believe in is science not fairy tails THE END....

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

As one of the comments on the article states ;

Paul turned the Teaching of Jesus upside down through the doctrine of "vicarious atonement" and the pagan-Egyptian, metaphysical doctrine of the raising of a dead physical body from the grave; when Jesus taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'; hence the conflict with both the Sadducees & the Pharisees in the first place.

ONE consequence of this ONE Doctrinal error was the extermination of tens of thousands of Albigensians.

A second consequence was the Holocaust.

The doctrin called here vicarious atonement was layed out long before Paul. As Jesus said "If you know Moses then you would know me". In addition to this Jesus Himself held the idea about vicatious atonement and sacrifice about Himself. Jesus also in fact was very clear and did teach a doctrin of an actual resurrection not simply a doctrin of spiritual rebirth.

This guy is not much of a scholar. In fact he is a lier using "scholarship" to hide behind. His whole premise for the justification for mass murder is just pathedic.

Your not the first to come up with this, you'll not be the last. It's an opinion like those who believe in aliens and spaceships buried inside pyramids.

I could say Mohammad never existed and you could never actually prove he did. You could quote what you've read but it wouldn't change anything.

What I'm saying is your post reveals what? An opinion. Some will accept it some won't, but it's not proof of anything.

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.

Yes I agree.
More time on ATS is spent attacking Christians than proving or disproving any other thread of thought whether it be ufo's, evolution or reptilian boogy men. I often wonder where are the "Budda is fake" or Scientology is scant threads are, but then I remember that rebellion against the truth are not taught by Travolta or Cruise.
The fact is I think as far as ATS posters are concerned you have two camps creating these threads and they are:

1. Those in open rebellion to the truth.
2. Those trying to get others dander up and get flags and stars.

adjensen,


What do you say about Paul's "sect", the Natsarim? And why God's "name" was scrubbed clean of the Bible (the Jews say it is too holy to speak by others, by why did they have a say in Christian text?), as well as Jesus' name being Greek for "hail Zeus" when his real name was supposed to mean "YAH is salvation", but many now say Yeshua which is Hebrew word play for "may his name be blotted out." His name doesn't really matter for us though (he may have been born a Jew but he didn't ascend as one): when we pray and say things like "in Jesus name" etc., God knows what we're talking about.

But it's pretty obvious people have gone [far] out of their way to keep things out of the Bible. Many of the Gnostic text seem truly odd, but what if those really were meant to be canon? Or what if they are just meant for those who are willing to go beyond? The esoteric exists, and I doubt that Christianity is separate from that.

It's hard for us in this day and age to simply agree upon something and say that that's how it was since none of us have any memory or were alive to see what actually took place in those days. "Factual history" can be easily falsified though, and as they say, "History is written by the victors." When I look at all the blasphemous things the established church has done over the years, it's truly difficult if not impossible for me to be skeptical of them. How many have died needlessly over the years "in the name of God"? When someone spoke out... they were deemed a heretic. Man's greed knows no bounds, but thankfully, God's love knows no bounds either.

We're most likely being played here by those same "victors", so in the end, it's best to look within for answers because that's where the kingdom is... what I like about the Gnostic text is how it teaches Oneness, and that it seems to be a bridge for many Eastern faiths. It's also hard to deny that to this day we use mudras in Christianity. Why don't we pray the same ways as Jews do? Why do we do it as Eastern religions with our palms together? It's interesting to say the least.

Cheers.

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by adjensen

 

I understand the etymology behind the words, but you for some reason fail to recognize the significance.

And you seem to find relevant connection when none exists. Sunday? Christians view it as a holy day, because it is the day of the resurrection of Christ, and that is tied to the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday. It has nothing to do with "sun worship", and pre-dates Constantine.

Ichthus is a Christian symbol that comes from Jesus' statement in the Gospel that he would make the Apostles "fishers of men", as well as the occurrence of fish in the New Testament (such as the feeding of the 5000). It has nothing to do with Pisces, and also pre-dates Constantine.

Roman Catholics pray to the virgin Mary and to the saints, though they twist this into that they are "asking Mary and the saints to pray for them". It's the same thing.

No, it is not the same thing. As you are apparently not a Roman Catholic, you might think it is, but it is not (and that's from someone who is also not a Roman Catholic, lol.) Intercessory prayer is NOT praying "to Mary" (or whoever), but asking Mary (or whoever) to pray to God on your behalf, with the belief that someone who is closer to God than you are is more likely to "have his ear" (and that's about as far as I'll defend it -- as I said, I'm not Catholic.)

Reply to post by leejohnbarnes

Okkkaaay.

Someone obvioulsy has not delved deep into teachings and history of the Tanakh. Therefore one can't see how the New Testament compliments the Tanakh.

Someone also, obviously does not know Jewish history or culture.






Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

By the way. Some of you should look into Messianic Judaism aka Hebrew Roots.

It has opener my eyes immensely.

I might do a thread on it here soon.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Not everyone followed the roman christian belief. There were many splits that have founded their own organizations, especially when disagreement with Constantines changes grew. Some still exist today. Debates such as Jesus being or not being the son of god, and the debate of god being one god or several gods (as back then they were confused with the holy trinity of the father, the son, and the holy spirit) led to many christians breaking off from the mainstream religion.

Christianity was a force that spread like wildfire due to its appeal to the poor and weak. It grew to the point that Rome had to conform due to majority, which is... the poor social class that made up the majority. I dont see how they crafted this religion, I can read history and note the changes made, and the political and social control of the catholics, I see how they took advantage and conformed to it, but I dont see anything else besides that.

I have never read anything about yahweh being evil and rejected by Jesus.

I would like to see links supporting it since this is interesting.

It is the work of priests appointed by the Emperors of the Roman Empire who were ordered to create a hierarchical centralised state religion in order to control the politics and religions of the Roman Empire.

Lost me immediately. Obviously didn't do your homework. Amazing these kinds of posts make it to the top.

Reply to post by AdamsMurmur

You're full of it, to be blunt.

www.eliyah.com...




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by adjensen


Here we are arguing over religion. You would think that a faith intended to save the souls of men would be less crappy and not so easily arguable. That's not an argument in itself, just an opinionated observation. Anyways, I'm not a pagan nor a Christian, nor am I an atheist. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine, but it is my belief that the "sanctity" of the bible is invalid and rubbish. It has some good parts, but as a holy book, it is not so. Based on my understanding of paganism and Christianity, it's obvious Christianity borrowed many things from paganism. Like I said already, it doesn't always have to do with Constantine. But anyways, let's just agree to disagree.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
What do you say about Paul's "sect", the Natsarim?

The Nazarenes? Personally, I find Paul's arguments against Judaic conversion of Gentile Christians to be exemplary. For Jews of the age, I suppose that the notion of the Law was so indoctrinated that moving beyond it was somewhat inconceivable, but the Protestant side of me rejects, utterly, the notion that salvation by the Law and salvation by Christ are two complimentary (rather than substitutionary) things.

And why God's "name" was scrubbed clean of the Bible (the Jews say it is too holy to speak by others, by why did they have a say in Christian text?), as well as Jesus' name being Greek for "hail Zeus" when his real name was supposed to mean "YAH is salvation", but many now say Yeshua which is Hebrew word play for "may his name be blotted out."

I don't know where you're coming up with that -- "Jesus" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word "Joshua", which means "Jehovah is our salvation". It has nothing to do with Zeus.

"Factual history" can be easily falsified though, and as they say, "History is written by the victors."

Well, it is, and it isn't. If all one counts on is texts, and all texts are completely controlled, I suppose so. However, "History is written by the victors" tends to be kind of a cop-out, and the actual events (or at least their general nature) inevitably emerge, provided that there is sufficient uncontrolled evidence (as is the case with Christianity, which existed before Constantine.)

When I look at all the blasphemous things the established church has done over the years, it's truly difficult if not impossible for me to be skeptical of them.

Kindly understand that I am no apologist for the Roman Catholic Church (I am not a Catholic, though I lean that way, theologically.) Yes, the Church has done a lot of questionable things over the centuries, but as my connection to Orthodoxy goes back to the Church Fathers, I tend to dismiss a lot of subsequent behaviour as being "beyond core Christian doctrine."

I would suggest that, if one limits their theology to that which can be derived from scripture (the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura,) one will be closer to "true Christianity" than is proposed by most churches today.

What it all comes down to is the mixing of culture and beliefs. The old testament itself used a lot of its stories from other more older religions. The tree of wisdom and noah, and many other stories from the bible, were taken from the Sumerian religion, which predates it by over 1000 years.

So in the long run, you are all wrong.

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

Originally posted by dalan.
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" . . .

Now on topic, OP, in your mind your premise may make sense and be lodged in truth as you see it. However, you have failed to prove your point in your thesis. Here is why,

Your thesis is three fold:

It [Bible] is the work of priests appointed by the Emperors of the Roman Empire who were ordered to create a hierarchical centralised state religion in order to control the politics and religions of the Roman Empire.

The Bible is a book put together in order to serve the Empire, not Christ.

To accept the validity of the Bible, one has to accept that the same people who killed Christ were the ones who wrote the book about him after his death.

1. In the first part of your argument, as stated above, the first few paragraphs jump to "If your read the Gnostic Gospels and the works of the Gnostic Christ". Which in itself may be a valid introduction for argument of your premise, but you fail to support this due to the lack of presentation of any supporting quotes or references. Instead you present your argument with generalizations about Christ.

2. You attempt to use two publications, which you do not give any type of bibliography, reference, or quote which would validate your argument. Instead you impose the burden of validation upon your proponents and opponents alike. This only nullifies your argument in the debate.

3. You then use your own writings to qualify your argument, again without references, which in any debate is invalid. Even though you may have been published by the most respectable publishers available, you cannot use yourself as a reference if you are part of the debate.

Summarily, your opponents in this discussion/debate, have asked several times for you to back your statements with documentation. However, you seem to either ignore (intentional) or don't understand (unintentional) what they are requesting.

It appears you are more interested in writing what you believe rather than having an open discussion of your topic as evidenced here:

posted on 5/17/2011 @ 11:34 AM
Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
"There is occurring a change in the psychic situation of the world and humanity which mirrors the astrological conception of the Platonic month and the procession of the equinoxes. The Christian Era began . . ."

The burden is on you to provide a valid argument with substantiated evidence. You have not done that in your opening argument, nor in the text that followed. You have simply repeated your belief which may be based on facts/truth, but has not been proven.


WOW, page 8. Man am I slow, I started this on page 4. LOL

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
The Bible is not the word of God.

Jesus did not write the Bible.

Nor did God.

It is the work of priests appointed by the Emperors of the Roman Empire who were ordered to create a hierarchical centralised state religion in order to control the politics and religions of the Roman Empire.

The Bible is a book put together in order to serve the Empire, not Christ.

To accept the validity of the Bible, one has to accept that the same people who killed Christ were the ones who wrote the book about him after his death.

The true teachings of Christ in the Gnostic Gospels were burnt by the Roman Empire under penalty of death for their possession.

If you read the Gnostic Gospels and the works of the Gnostic Christ you find such things as ;

1) Yahweh / Jehovah is a demon called Yaldaboath

2) That Christ rejected Yahweh / Jehovah and taught his followers two teachings - the exoteric one for the spirutually unenlightened ( The Psychics and Hylics led by Peter and the Petrian Succession ) and an esoteric Gnosis to the spiritually enlightened ( The Pneumatics who were led by John who are the Johannine Succession of the Spirit )

As one of the comments on the article states ;

Paul turned the Teaching of Jesus upside down through the doctrine of "vicarious atonement" and the pagan-Egyptian, metaphysical doctrine of the raising of a dead physical body from the grave; when Jesus taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'; hence the conflict with both the Sadducees & the Pharisees in the first place.

ONE consequence of this ONE Doctrinal error was the extermination of tens of thousands of Albigensians.

A second consequence was the Holocaust.


3) That Christians are not Christians as they reject the Gnosis of Christ - they are Constantians in that they worship the state religion created by Constantine and hence reject the Gnosis that allows them to discover ' The Christ within' and that 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within' and hence experience spiritual rebirth and release from material captivity.

This article adds more detail to the forgery thesis ;

freethoughtnation.com...

Great now prove it...

Give me some reasons why what you say is true. So far all you have is a differing opinion.

Also you seem to want to talk only about the "New Testament". So if all the "Old Testament" prophecies come true does that mean a traditional "New Testament" interpretation is true?

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I've already read that page a while ago, thanks though. You may want to read this as well if you'd like: www.fossilizedcustoms.com...


reply to post by adjensen


Thanks for the reply. The whole Zeus thing is most definitely some crackpot theory based on how it's pronounced, I admit and stand corrected for being wrong there and shouldn't have even brought it up. Ζεύς vs Ἰησοῦς, not the same at all. The whole "watchmen" thing was some other theory that says that possibly it was the true name of Christians (there's even a movement based on this). I don't adhere to that theory though.

Just goes to show there is a lot of confusion and differing of opinions out there. Ah well, questions can be answered through meditation.

Cheers and take care.

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." However, to imply that studying this 'history' overrides any other train of thought strikes me as somewhat dogmatic. If the OP is in any way correct, then the study of the distorted history may, in fact, be also distorted. The 'generally accepted facts' may not be factual at all. That's the point O see in the OP. To cling to one 'truth' and ignore any and all argument is hardly open minded, rather the opposite. If the foundation of your faith is attacked, and your argument is based on a your adherence to a lie (which is possible), failure to see another point of view becomes your downfall. Surely, your Christ would have had better argument.

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.

I'm no biblical genius, but wasn't Abraham Sumerian? Why do so many of the Biblical stories carry so many coincidences to the Sumerian legend? Are they the same stories? Putting new names on old stories doesn't make them true. The fables of Aesop feature talking crows and foxes, but we know (don't we?) that this is not true. However, the morals still ring true to a point. Same for the Bible. A lot of great stories, with good morals. Not necessarily true, but good morals at the end. The teachings of Christ are pretty cool, but what I take from them is, "here's another way of looking at things." Dogmatic adherence to only one side of the story can lead to ignorance. What do you see when you look at this page? My words making your blood boil as I 'fail to see your point of view'? I see a bunch of print, a grey background, and a flashing cursor. Perspective. What I see has no less value than what you see. What others see and believe has no less, and no more value than what you see and believe. Don't attack the messenger for seeing things a little differently. Nobody has any less value for not believing what you believe.

Chinese whispers from the Bronze age should not, to my way of thinking, be taken as the true word. If they are, you might not see the forest for the trees. There's some nice stories, and some good morals, but blindly adhering to these tales may not be what your Christ had in mind.

Take a look at the wonder Hubbel telescope picture of the horsehead nebula. Famous picture. It's known as 'God's kitchen' for those who like that sort of thing. Take any two stars in that picture. The distance between them has absolutely no reference within your scope. Way too big a distance to even begin to understand. No point of comparison you have available to you will ever help you comprehend the sheer enormity of that space.
I wonder if your God is the same. Nothing in your experience, knowledge, or understanding could ever make any sense of it at all. Yet you cling to a personification of this magnificence? Just too big.
Perhaps in the Gospel of Judas where he acknowledges Jesus' understanding of God, he's astounded that someone could make any sense out of something that big. Oh, right. That one isn't in the 'Bible' is it?
Wonder why? Who would fail to include it? Oh, the Council of Nicea.....
Since the Bible is supposed to be an all encompassing journal, and 'the true word of God' you'd think it would have all that stuff in there...What else is missing? Again, perspective.

oh yea.. it's a total forgery ..best forgery in history... but sure saved my life~!!

Ya Know it is sad and absurd how dishonest people are over religious history.These Threads just end up screaming at each other.The attacks on christians is down right absurd compared to how much good christians have done for the world.