The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

Originally posted by jellyfishbrains
reply to post by milkyway12

 

Dude the bible was not the "bible" untill 300 AD before that is was stories unorganized mostly until Constantine decided to "chose" which books best displayed proper population control. Then he and the church politely burned The Gnostic Bible and other contenders in an attempt to validate his creation.

And you know this how?

When all the evidence has been destroyed thousands of years ago and most of humanity born since then has never even concieved that this could have happened.

But you know this?

Can you see the hole in the logic here?

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


Ok you made it very clear that you have no intention of actually studying this thread.

You have "your" interpretation. You basically just trolled.


You hit a nerve when i realized you were actually trolling and do not believe a single word the bible says , and could care less the argument on this thread.

The real change was at the Council of Nicea where they decided which books were to be included in The Bible (ie, Gospels of the Apostles in - Apochrapha out). Other changes like The King James or New American Standard versions were more semantic IMO.

reply to post by milkyway12


Jesus may have been real. The reason I and some others are having a hard time with your posts is that your viewing the bible as hard fact. Stop that. Jesus if he was real was a smart man very good at using christian teachings to brainwash people.

The "character" of Jesus in this book the bible, is mostly based on or influenced by many other people/deities/myths that predate your aryan playboy by a long time.

*see Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Oddyses.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


The King James version can be matched nearly 99.5% to the original text and letters sent to the new teachers from the Apostles. ( Discluding punctuation , and sentence structure of the time)

It double posted , sorry.

reply to post by chr0naut


It's fact. But yes I do know this.

wow!
I am 2 pages into this thread and I am amazed that nobody is up to your challenge.
If I can add to this a little.
As far as the gospel story goes and the comparisons some seek to who copied from who's story.
Can anyone go further back than the Mazzaroth? Kind of hard to change the stars. I believe all the ancient texts relate to the Mazzaroth for the original storylines. Yes, there is an original but most here want to start in the middle and not the beginning for their references hoping that their pre-suppositions hold up.


wow! Can I skip to the end to see if anyone took up the challenge or is thread full of blind dis-belief based on wiki searches?

reply to post by chr0naut


What are you phoning in or something? Go read a non christian agenda history book.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The real change was at the Council of Nicea where they decided which books were to be included in The Bible (ie, Gospels of the Apostles in - Apochrapha out). Other changes like The King James or New American Standard versions were more semantic IMO.

No, they didn't.

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with determinig which books were "in" (canonical) and which were "out".

Please read up on the Council of Nicea, it isn't difficult.

reply to post by manna2


Really? I was unaware that the Zodiac had such deep roots in faith...

reply to post by randyvs


First of all I love anyone who uses 'poppycock' in regular conversation!

Secondly: even if such a deity was real, I refuse to venerate anyone who is as much of a megalomaniacal, bloodthirsty, capricious, petty, and all around vengeful sociopath as the Judeo-Christian God. Anyone who would knowingly make humans as they are, know in advance what they would do, and still condemn them to an eternity of barbequing in between sessions of torture that would give even Uday Hussein the heebie jeebies is not worthy of any veneration. Period. The Bible shows that God not only sanctions, but encourages or requires acts of murder, rape, incest, genocide, racism, misogyny, to name only a few. Jesus/Muhammed/whoever's message of peace and love cannot possibly make up for their downright vile crimes that surround their brief feel good words.

If anyone but God wrote a book that contained even a fraction of what is in the Bible then they would quickly be committed for the rest of their lives due to an obvious violent mental instability. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Milosevic, etc didn't write stuff anywhere near as explicit as what is in The Bible. Only in the name of religion do you have people blowing themselves up to murder innocent civilians, attempt to wipe out entire ethnic groups, start an unprovoked war for 'holy' ground, or kill people over whether or not they believe a cracker becomes the body and blood of God. Religion is ultimately why I was sent overseas twice to fight a war against people barely out of the Stone Age who couldn't even read the holy book that they shot mortars or set IEDs over. Only in the context of religion is this sort of behavior ever considered normal!

Anyone advocating for any religion: please go and read your holy book first. And don't listen to any of the nonsense from clerics of why whatever atrocity contained within was 'justified.' Just think about would you want that to happen to your family over screwing up a census, giving God vegetables instead of blood, or whatever utterly human action or fallibility that gets (Insert Pompous Almighty Deity Here)'s panties in a twist. Then after honestly considering that scenario come back and honestly tell me you think any of what is advocated is something you would be proud to say is done in your name. If after that you can somehow okay any of it then please go check yourself into the nearest psych ward so no more innocent people have to suffer the consequences of your homage to an obviously deranged deity

reply to post by d1g1talgangster


And if you read the thread in it's entirety, you should find much here that would reinforce and correspond to your FAITH and give it heart and soul and affirmation. You see, that is exactly what these threads are meant to do, by our philosophical argument, is to disenfranchise those who have faith and lead you to think we are disrespecting you, when many of us mean to affirm, because what is posted in it's absolute and what follows detaches and offends you, which is what the occult wishes it to do, to further divide us. We live in times where the evil that is our enemy masquerades as the savior, even in killing us or pushing us to suicide or some other kind of sacrifice.
The danger exists in absolutes. Faith exists without word or proof or existence or vision. Faith is knowing, lacking the appearance of what it is that we know or believe....it is why it is faith. The absolutes asked for in the OP are really about challenging faith, under the guise of reaffirming it by believing an absolute which within a historical context cannot be true, and there is much to prove it isn't.

reply to post by tetra50


Blind Faith is false hope. If it works for you and makes you feel good, fantastic. You have successfully fooled your mind into believing nonsense and are better for it.

reply to post by manna2


How about you just stick to reading the whole thread. You wanna get into the gospel according to astrology and new age nec romantics, why dont you start a new thread. I'm with you. Got the sources and the reading, but how about not dissing what you haven't read yet

Also chrononut and milkyway most likely believe in the war on terror too. I'd like to know it would revel alot about your character.

People often find it easier to be a result of the past than a cause of the future.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” – Socrates

Knowing this, All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense.

Of course the Bible has been rewritten changed and omitted whatever was necessary for those who where the middle men of truth. just the fact that the Bible was translated from greek to latin back to greek back to latin is enough to deteriorate the original message of its beget-tor which could be fraudulent from the start

History, Science and and Religion/spirituality are best understood when looked at from present to past.
When you start from the past and work your way to the present and end your be told a story, which is interpreted thru the mind of someone else in the way that best suits their own understanding. Often leading to their own willful blindness of cognitive bias

Here is another interpretation of the event of 2000 years ago
Ask your self this if you can't see the possibility of truth in it, maybe being true, part true or even half true
then what truly can you see? or just not see?

The Christian Jesus Christ to be a character most likely based on the life Julius Caesar, both began their careers in northern countries: Caesar in Gaul, Jesus in Galilee; both cross a fatal river the Rubicon and the Jordan; both then enter cities: Corfinium and Cafarnaum; The similarities remain consistent throughout
Caesar > Jesus
Pompey > John (the Baptist)
Antonius > Simon
Lepidus > Peter
(Decimus) Junius (Brutus) > Judas
(Marcus Junius) Brutus > Barabbas
Octavianus (Augustus) > John (the disciple)
Nicomedes of Bithynia > Nicodemus of Bethania
Cleopatra > (Mary) Magdalene
Julia (widow of Marius) > Mary
The Senate > The Sanhedrin
Gaul > Galilee
Rubicon > Jordan
Corfinium > Cafarnaum
Rome > Jerusalem

People and places have the same function in both stories:
Pompey is the political godfather of Caesar and competes with him in the same way John the Baptist does with Jesus.
Antony and Lepidus became Caesar’s successors, the first as flamen, high priest of the Divus Julius cult, the second as pontifex maximus, just as Simon and Peter do with Jesus (they both melt into one figure – Simon Peter).
Decimus Junius Brutus betrays Caesar as Judas betrays Jesus.
The other Brutus is Caesar’s murderer and Barabbas is a murderer.
Octavian is the young Caesar, his posthumously adopted son. John is adopted by Jesus as he is dying on the cross.

Nicomedes of Bithynia was said to have had nightly meetings with Caesar as did Nicodemus of Bethany with Jesus.
Cleopatra had a special relationship with Caesar as did Mary Magdalene with Jesus.
Julia, Caesar’s aunt and widow of Marius plays the same role as Mary, the mother of Jesus.

The Senate is Caesar’s enemy, just as the Council is Jesus’ Satan.

Caesar comes from Gaul, in the north, at the beginning of the Civil War, while Jesus also comes from the north,
Galilee, at the beginning of his public life.

Corfinium is the first city Caesar occupies and Cafarnaum is the first city Jesus enters.

Rome is the capital, where Caesar first triumphs and later is assassinated. Jerusalem is the city where Jesus is celebrated on Palm Sunday and later put to death.

Names resemble each other in writing and phonetically – Gallia and Galilaia, Corfinium and Cafarnaum, (Julia) Mària and Marìa, Nicomedes of Bithynia and Nicodemus of Bethania, etc. Other examples are not as obvious but can still be recognized: Junius (Brutus) and Judas, Brutus and Barabbas, Senatus and Satanas, etc., or even ROMA and HieROsolyMA, Antonius and Simona (mirror images, from right to left, as if it were written in Aramaic), etc.

CAESAR’S MOST FAMOUS QUOTATIONS ARE FOUND IN THE GOSPELS – IN STRUCTURALLY SIGNIFICANT PLACES.
Most quotes are word for word, sometimes with insignificant differences:
«He who does not take sides is on my side» reoccurs as «For he that is not against us is for us.».

«I am not King, I am Caesar» appears as «We have no king but Caesar».
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p. 182 ]

«The best death is sudden death» appears as «What you are going to do (lead me to death), do quickly».
«Did I save them, that they might destroy me?» is «He saved others; he cannot save himself.»

Only in two cases are there slight, yet meaningful distortions:

«Alea iacta est(o)», «The die is cast», became «… casting (a net into the sea): for they were fishers» (confusion of lat. alea, die, and gr. (h)aleeis, fishers) – the miraculous netting of fish).

«Veni vidi vici», «I came, I saw, I conquered”, changed to «I came, I washed and I saw.» (confusion of enikisa, I won, and enipsa, I washed) – the healing of the blind.

An additional confirmation is that the words as well as actions of Caesar and Jesus reoccur in the same place and in the same sequence, while preserving the same chronology.

reply to post by milkyway12

Ok you made it very clear that you have no intention of actually studying this thread.

You are wrong, i find the prospect of the Creator intervening with humanity to be a possibility but unprobable. So i seek answers and ask questions, when i ask you and question seeking proof you refuse to provide said proof being dishonest and and disingenuous with me and yourself. As well as the reader. You resort to lashing out and calling me a troll ?

You have "your" interpretation. You basically just trolled.

So interpreting something is trolling now?

Fallacy

Then that makes you a troll by default

You hit a nerve when i realized you were actually trolling and do not believe a single word the bible says , and could care less the argument on this thread.

More logical fallacy, if i believe what the Bible says or not does not make me a troll. I do not have to believe in the bible to participate in discussion. You need to grow up and practice what you preach.

reply to post by jellyfishbrains

I think you were the one that couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread. If you did, you would see that nothing I espoused to was about blind faith. ON the contrary, my faith is quite informed, and I have seen what many would wish never to see, and it did not originate from my brain or thought process, and having seen this is the origin of my faith that this cannot and will not, with all power within me, no matter how weak, will not be,if I can so help it

Originally posted by jellyfishbrains
reply to post by milkyway12

 

Jesus may have been real. The reason I and some others are having a hard time with your posts is that your viewing the bible as hard fact. Stop that. Jesus if he was real was a smart man very good at using christian teachings to brainwash people.

The "character" of Jesus in this book the bible, is mostly based on or influenced by many other people/deities/myths that predate your aryan playboy by a long time.

*see Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Oddyses.

When Jesus existed, there were no Christians. The Christians were his followers and weren't called that until some time after His death.

He didn't brainwash people. What he did do and say was written down by His followers and is all there, out in the open, for you to read today.

The character of Jesus created the world (according to the Gospel of John). I reckon Buddah, Dionysus, Horus, Oddyses & etc are more likely to have copied His character.

PS: the Aryans were from supposedly Caucasians from Assyria or Iran and who migrated through India into Europe. Jesus, however, was semitic and specifically, Jewish. The only people I know of who called themselves Aryan persecuted Jewish people just because they were Jewish. Calling Jesus an aryan playboy is both ignorant and offensive.