• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

If the Bible has been edited, then why leave in the bad bits about God?

Meth.. If you're talking about the reactions of at the time of Jesus, as rick said, we have no record of them.

It is commonly accepted among people well-versed in history that Jesus was probably not a real man. I'm not sure why you said Jewish Jesus deniers - you're bordering, tonally, on racism / antisemitism - and I'm not sure who you're referring to. Unless you mean people that you know? Do you know Jewish people that sit around debating the divinity of Christ? Because I don't.

Non-Christians (not just Jewish people) don't believe in the story of Christ, even if they believe he was a real man. Whether or not a man was born of a virgin and performed miracles before coming back from the dead, is not a brain-teaser. I don't sit around questioning the divinity of a man that didn't exist.. and non-Christians who believe he did exist (but didn't perform miracles) don't sit around questioning his divinity either.

Whether he existed or not doesn't matter, in other words.

I mean wouldnt the first thing a Jewish Jesus denier want to get on the record if Jesus didnt exist is "hey, jesus cant be God because Jesus isnt real
Click to expand...

Disproving the literal divinity of Christ is like shooting fish in a barrel.

1. Jesus can't be God, because Jesus was a man.
2. Jesus can't be God, because Jesus wasn't a man.

Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
your all going to go to hell and burn in eternal hell fire ! but i love you and if you confess somehow your now totally fine ! got to love some jesus ! my god people are so in need of a better way of spirituality! what thats looks like i dont know !
 
going-to-create-man-and-woman.jpg
 
your all going to go to hell and burn in eternal hell fire

translation: if you take your sins to the grave, your final moments will be infinitely painful

but i love you and if you confess somehow your now totally fine !

translation: do not fear: atone for your sins, before it is too late, and die in peace

(makes sense to me.)

... I mean ... uh,
religion sucks !
lol !
 
rickolasnice said:
Such as?

Where's my chess game! :p
Click to expand...
Does
Fall of Babylonian Empire
Rise and fall of Medo Persian empire
Rise and fall of Greek empire(including Alexander the great and his empire being split up into 4 parts)
Rise and fall of Roman Empire ( including spliting into ten empires)
Date/time Jesus/messiah would come
count?

I sent you message on chatzy
Still up for chess?☺
 
ForEverAfter said:
Meth.. If you're talking about the reactions of at the time of Jesus, as rick said, we have no record of them.

It is commonly accepted among people well-versed in history that Jesus was probably not a real man. I'm not sure why you said Jewish Jesus deniers - you're bordering, tonally, on racism / antisemitism - and I'm not sure who you're referring to. Unless you mean people that you know? Do you know Jewish people that sit around debating the divinity of Christ? Because I don't.

Non-Christians (not just Jewish people) don't believe in the story of Christ, even if they believe he was a real man. Whether or not a man was born of a virgin and performed miracles before coming back from the dead, is not a brain-teaser. I don't sit around questioning the divinity of a man that didn't exist.. and non-Christians who believe he did exist (but didn't perform miracles) don't sit around questioning his divinity either.

Whether he existed or not doesn't matter, in other words.



Disproving the literal divinity of Christ is like shooting fish in a barrel.

1. Jesus can't be God, because Jesus was a man.
2. Jesus can't be God, because Jesus wasn't a man.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Its not commonly accepted among scholars that Jesus was not a real man.

Im not being antisemitic. You have to deny Jesus's divinity if you are a practicing Jew. Yes or No?

Lol you are sitting around as we speak debating the existence and divinity of Jesus!!

Why does the idea of him being real unsettle you?

JESUS was the devine nature of God manifested in the flesh. Whats hard to understand about that?
 
Last edited:
Oh please..

Read Daniel 8 (which is supposedly the prophecy of Alexander the Greats empire being split up into 4 parts)

That's the thing when filling a book with hundreds of pages of "prophecies" in the most ambiguous of ways.. eventually something that could resemble the story will happen.. but no.. the location is wrong and the date for which God says the prophecy is out.. ooooh by about 400 years..

And no of course Jesus doesn't count.. The story of Jesus was written around the "prophecy".. I linked you to my thread where i explain this in great detail (Tis on page two and is called "The New Testament - What I now know!"

Links to passages for others?
 
moo

rickolasnice said:
Oh please..

Read Daniel 8 (which is supposedly the prophecy of Alexander the Greats empire being split up into 4 parts)

That's the thing when filling a book with hundreds of pages of "prophecies" in the most ambiguous of ways.. eventually something that could resemble the story will happen.. but no.. the location is wrong and the date for which God says the prophecy is out.. ooooh by about 400 years..

And no of course Jesus doesn't count.. The story of Jesus was written around the "prophecy".. I linked you to my thread where i explain this in great detail (Tis on page two and is called "The New Testament - What I now know!"

Links to passages for others?
Click to expand...
Daniel was specific on his visions and interpretaions in respect.
Daniels phrophecy of the Messiah was written and on record before the Messiah came.
 
Ah.. Thought so..

The Jewish and Protestant versions of Daniel (the Greek and Catholic version contains additional material) divide into two parts, a set of tales in chapters 1–6 in which Daniel and his companions demonstrate the superiority of their God, and the series of visions making up chapters 7–12.[3][4] Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE).[4] Its exclusion from the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) was probably because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an apocalypse.[5] The Greek and Catholic versions of Daniel include three books that seem to have been written later than the original: The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, and The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.[6]

The "prophecy" was written after the event.. Same as Jesus' prophecies.. All written after the event.
 
Last edited:
What? No serious historian disputes John was the author of his Gospel.
Since he lived and knew Jesus personally I believe he was of his time period.
If you want to say he made his account up that's your prorogative.
Click to expand...

The authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John don't claim to have known Jesus.. The names were probably added by third parties after they were written.. Hence the titles "The Gospels AS TOLD BY xxxx"

The first person to mention Mark, Matthew Luke and John by name was Irenaeus a bishop that lived around 200AD..

No mention of Jesus from a non Christian source until over 80 years after his death.
 
Not sure if somebody's already mentioned this, but: the Christian gospels (especially if you include The Holy Apocrypha) directly contradict each other... If they were written by people who were there, at the time, then there wouldn't be so many inconsistencies. The fact that they were written after the supposed death of Christ is reflected by how the details of the original story have been distorted.

The Gospels of Christ cannot be taken collectively as historical accounts, because they don't tell the same story.
 
I have in previous threads..

In case people are thinking "Wha!? No waaii!" the here's a couple of examples:

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

and

Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). (Which shouldn't have even been an issue seeing as Joseph did not father Jesus)

A huge smoking gun, though, would be Matthew and Luke adding the Virgin Birth to comply with Isaiah 7:14.. which was a mistranslated by Matthew as it says "Born of a young woman" and not "Born of a virgin".. Not the only bit of Hebrew he translated poorly putting holes in his story..

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. But Jerimiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

Do you really need any more proof that Matthew added things to Marks story based not on what he saw but what he read (wrongly) in Jewish scripture?
 
Matthews gospels contains 92% of Marks, Lukes contains 50% of Marks and nearly 235 verses in Matthew and Luke are similar to one another. In those places where agreement appears, incredible similarities can extend even to identical tense and mood for every word in an entire verse (or more).

They're not writing about a person they knew and events they witnessed.. they're copying Marks writings.. and Marks writings read like a piece of fiction. Read works by historians around that time.. The style of writing is completely different. Marks story has characters, plot lines, twists, drama, etc etc etc
 
methamaniac said:
Never said it did.
Im saying why die for something you know
you made up.
Click to expand...

You wrote: "IMO people wouldnt be willing to die for a known fabrication." Forgive me if you use English entirely differently to the rest of us, but it seems you are implicitly connecting the idea of people dying for their beliefs and the veracity of those beliefs. If that isn't what you were saying, you must speak more clearly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top