• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Jesus Invented By The Romans?

Free episodes:

As for the contradictions in the Bible (not sure which ones you are referring to)

Let me enlighten you then

Biblical Contradictions

Contradictions of the Gospel


Found this gem yesterday too,

The Holy Book Isn’t
The crisis is a big brain crisis, humans have big brains and are using them for destructive purpose. We are the fascist planet of the Apes. We need an apocalyptic transformation of our minds. The crisis is forcing humanity to change. Will you change or be the dinosaur that goes extinct? It’s up to you. What are we going to do, pray to the war god for peace? That probably won’t work. We must rewrite our myths and remove the destroyer god from our minds, we must ditch the holy books that are driving our culture straight to hell.
Most people don’t realize that the Bible is a doomsday book and Christians are a death worshiping cult. The Bible teaches that history ends and everything gets destroyed by the savior god that comes back in a mode of vengeance. Sounds appealing to those under the spell. We worship death and think we are going to heaven.
Those in the cult are blinded by the memes, they can’t recognise that their beliefs are causal to the destruction. Want hell to stop? Stop worshiping hell and calling it heaven, stop thinking that punishment is a good thing and that we need more prisons. Stop worshiping a judging god because by doing that you are programming your mind to be judgmental. With a judgmental mind you will vote and create a police state, a prison planet. Everything you believe god to be is what you project on the world.
Most Americans are psychotic because they agree to the Bible premise of eternal punishment, where the unsaved go to a hell and are tortured eternally. This is a monster philosophy, believing in these ideas makes you wicked, you will think nothing of those being tortured throughout the worldwide American gulag.
The ultimate ego trip is believing that you are saved while all the rest go to hell, with that supremacist philosophy you can be made to do anything, like dropping bombs on everyone unsaved. And the one thing that Jewish-Christian Supremacist America loves to do is drop bombs on everyone else. Vietnam was your cultures psychosis unveiled.
We will treat each other far differently when we realize that this is it, no afterlife. When you quit with the Bible hell you’ve been taught then you will stop projecting that meme on the world. What can save us is an easy answer and most difficult to implement. The Bible has to go away, it is no holy book, it is the hell making literature and bad fiction. What we need is a radical total transformation of human consciousness from the prejudicial ape biped to universal loving man, one in tune with Nature and the Cosmos.
What is stopping this naturally transformation from primitive superstition to a fully self aware being? The Bible, the holy book of the culture is stopping the evolution of the specie. The old myths have humanity in a stranglehold, most humans are in mental lockdown, unable to grasp their predicament, they are acting out the negativity of the myths handed down.

Bad Myth Makes Bad People
The problem with most religions is they teach you to live for the next life, not this one. They have institutionalized not being in the present moment. Millions of humans are praying right now to go to heaven, or chanting mantras purifying their souls and escaping the karmic wrath of judgement.
But what if the myths are wrong? What if there is no god and this is your only life? That would change everything, because now your life becomes an expression of you in this moment, every waking moment a precious thing. Religion is getting people worried about things that aren’t real, people are wasting their lives, living lives of quite desperation because of myth.

The god meme was also important because we assigned causality to all that was unexplainable. God is an invention of our imagination, our brains needed a crutch to explain the bewildering viewpoint of a newly evolving self aware creature. With god our brains could rationalize their viewpoint within the hologram, whatever you couldn’t grasp you assign it to the god category.
What’s that thing over there? Hell if I know, its just another part of God’s handiwork. By anthropomorphizing we can explain anything, like thunder and lightning. When I am angry I throw sticks and stones and make loud noises, when god is angry he throws lightning bolts and makes thunder. It’s a logical deduction, we assign our characteristics to god, humans loves to do this. Why does the sun set? God is going into the underworld just as we go into caves.
Think you are immune to this process? Most people are assigning god causality to everyday events on a regular basis. Why did Joe get in a car wreck and live? God. Why did Joe get in a car wreck and die? God. Why didn’t Joe wreck his car today? Jesus loves Joe, that’s why. If you ask how a watch works, “God is in charge and is making the clock tick”.
The skeptic is often challenged by the believer, “Why are you always doubting god?” or “I find your lack of belief disturbing, maybe we need to see a priest and see if demons have taken over your soul!” God as the cause of everything still possesses much of humanity, and those who think that way are often threatened by those with inquiring minds.

Waking Up to the Holographic Universe | Veterans Today
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At the heart of most religions is a real person that rocked a lot of people's worlds. They were usually so radical, for their time period, in their beliefs, values and attitudes that many would have been heard to say things like, "that guy's so cool I'm dropping everything to follow him," or, "this guy is so incredible that he probably walks on water."

I think historical Jesus is important because he said a lot of great stuff like love one another, treat others as you would be treated, don't judge others, and try to be more laid back and fun in this lifetime like children are.

The whole rising from the dead thing, the miracles etc. well that's bound to happen in the stories told about a dude who was a social and political radical and kindness agent. Lots of tall tales get told in the wake of the local hero and then, whadda ya know, ya got yerself a brand new spankin' & sparklin' religion bursting with love and kindness.

Jesus gets a bad rap these days because he got co-opted by those that refurbished Christianty. I think he was a pretty cool guy and we all have a lot to learn from people like that who put their money where their mouth is, you know, who really put their heart and soul into their passions.
 
Let me enlighten you then

Pulling up a bunch of garbage websites is not very enlightening. I went to the very first web sight and looked at the very first claim of a contradiction. That whole list is not put into context. For example, Gen 1:31 says that God was happy with what he created up to that point. Gen 6:6, which is after man has sinned (which was very disappointing to him), it says he regretted he had put man on earth and it grieved him to his heart. - I see no contradiction here, but rather, pure consistency.

It will take a lot of time to go through each and everyone of these claims, putting each one into proper context. I think if you do that and study it yourself, you will see that most of those claims of contradictions are just not true.

Maybe this should continue in another thread...the real topic here is if Jesus was fictitious or not...
 
Pulling up a bunch of garbage websites is not very enlightening. I went to the very first web sight and looked at the very first claim of a contradiction. That whole list is not put into context. For example, Gen 1:31 says that God was happy with what he created up to that point. Gen 6:6, which is after man has sinned (which was very disappointing to him), it says he regretted he had put man on earth and it grieved him to his heart. - I see no contradiction here, but rather, pure consistency.

It will take a lot of time to go through each and everyone of these claims, putting each one into proper context. I think if you do that and study it yourself, you will see that most of those claims of contradictions are just not true.

Maybe this should continue in another thread...the real topic here is if Jesus was fictitious or not...

Actually you make my point for me very well thank you.

You looked at the source ive provided and tried to make a case that the source contains errors and thus must be discarded as data.......Garbage

Thats more or less the case i have against the bible. Garbage

Its funny how we can easily see the absurdity of another cultures myth


But our programming wont let us use the exact same tools on the one we were taught

 
Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth.

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence showing any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels—the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ—were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of today to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these two rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it—one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!


Did Jesus Christ Really Live?
 
It is rather surprising that after all the erudite work done on the Jesus myth there should be any need, especially in Freethought circles, to discuss the subject again. Considering what has been accomplished by the thorough-going investigations of John M. Robertson, T. Whitaker, W. Smith, Drews, Dupuis, Volney, L. G. Rylands, Albert Kalthoff, Robert Taylor, and a veritable host of other students, one can rightly say that today the mythicist position is unassailable. The theologic defense has been unable to bring forth any credible evidence to substantiate its contention of historicity. Position after position had to be abandoned by the church. To each, however, the apologists clung with desperate anxiety, only to be compelled to relinquish them as the studies of comparative mythology and heirology advanced. Being unable to present a Jesus established by unbiased historic investigation, the religious world, at last, was compelled to resort to her usual adulation of "faith" and "spiritual" insight as elements which, she hoped, would enable her to establish a basis for the historic Jesus. Whatever merit those two factors may have within the confines of a church, they cannot add anything to the analytic apparatus utilized by an objective historian.

Scholars have often averred that the Jesus of the New Testament is a myth, that he never had existed, and that there is no historical evidence to substantiate the claims for his existence advanced by the Christian church. At first the religious apologists scoffed at this contention and attributed the statements of the scholars to pure wickedness, seeing in it but another attempt of Satan to lure more souls in to Hell--this, and nothing more.
But as the study of mythology advanced, historical parallels were constructed and the truth began to dawn upon unprejudiced persons. The similarities proved to be extremely destructive to the accepted beliefs about the life of Jesus.
Dupuis, Strauss, Drews, Smith, Robertson and others brought together sufficient evidence to establish upon a firm foundation that there is nothing in all history to prove that the Jesus of the New Testament ever walked the face of the earth.
Contemporary writers displayed an amazing lack of information about Jesus. Here was a man who performed miracles that astounded the multitudes, yet his acts are not found recorded in the books of historians who noted occurrences of much less importance. Remsburg, in "The Christ," names forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the period, when Jesus is said to have existed, and from all their writings only four passages are to be found that might possibly support the historicity of Jesus. And of these four passages, not a single one can stand a critical test.
It is agreed that the strongest of them is the passage found in the works of a Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.). Prof. Arthur Drews, in "Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus," states that "he (Josephus) is the first profane writer who can seriously be quoted for the historicity of Jesus."
If the passage in Josephus is genuine, then strong and in fact formidable proof is offered for the Christian claim along historical lines. On the other hand, should this passage be found a mere forgery, a clumsy interpolation, then the strongest element o f proof for the historicity of Jesus in the whole mass of ancient literature crumbles and dissolves.
Josephus was the author of "A Defense of the Jewish Religion." In this he showed himself to be a fervent believer in Judaism--a point that must be kept in mind in view of the passage attributed to him depicting Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah. At the tim e he wrote, the Christians constituted a very small sect, of no particular political or social importance. Late in the first century, Josephus completed his classical work, "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this book is found a complete history of his race, dating from the very earliest age, according to the knowledge of his day.
While in the midst of the story of a Jewish uprising, the narrator in this book is interrupted by the following irrelevant passage:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man--if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works and a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He w as the Christ. Although Pilate, at the complaint of the leaders of our people, condemned him to die on the cross, his earlier followers were faithful to him. For he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as god-sent prophets had foretold this and a thousand other wonderful things of him. The tribe of Christians, which is called after him, survives until the present day." (Jewish Antiquities xviii, 3, 3.)
Would Josephus, who wrote with such careful sequence, break the unity of his narrative to observe, with Christian piety, that "about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. . . . He wrought miracles. . . . He was the Christ. . . . He appeared to them alive again on the third a, day as god-sent prophets had foretold" etc.? All this we are asked to accept as coming from Josephus, an extremely pious Jew!
We should be inclined to think that this Jewish historian, after noting a matter of such prime importance in the history of his people as the coming of Jesus the Messiah, would proceed to elaborate on it, to impress its significance upon his religious brethren; for the Jews at that time were bestowing great attention on matters pertaining to the coming of the Messiah. In fact, they were awaiting the Messiah with painful impatience and desperate hope.
But Josephus, as soon as he is through with the Jesus passage, the heaven-sent Messiah, the long awaited Christ who was to bring peace and happiness to all those suffering under the cruel Roman heel, goes on, as though nothing of unusual importance had be en touched upon, to make the statement: "Also about this time another misfortune befell the Jews"; and the text continues leisurely with the story of how Tiberius expelled the Jews from Rome. Attention is immediately arrested by the wording, "another misfortune befell the Jews." What other misfortune? If Joshephus had written the joyful Jesus passage, would he have continued with "another misfortune" and then told of Tiberius and his expulsion of the Jews?
About this passage affirming Jesus as the Christ a number of observations might be made. Josephus is obviously ignorant of the occurrences connected with Jesus and his followers. As one who accepted Jesus as the Messiah whom the "god-sent prophets had foretold," Josephus must certainly have gathered zealously all available information about him. Yet, the conscientious narrator of Jewish history fails utterly to note such exciting events as:
  1. The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.
  2. His acclamation as the Messiah.
  3. The riot before the governor's house.
  4. The surrendering by the Sanhedrim of one of their people to the Roman authorities.
  5. The disappearance of the body from the grave.
It is not an easy matter, as Professor Drews states, to show that these events were too insignificant for Josephus to record. The Acts of the Apostles (ii, 41) shows the new religious sect (Christian) entering into deadly rivalry with the old religion. It is difficult to understand how Josephus, a thorough historian in his way, could have failed to include the aforementioned events in his work had these incidents occurred during the life of Jesus.
That he noticed messianic disturbances in the times is amply proven in his "Antiquities" (xviii, 4, 1). Here are noted the false Messiah and his attempt to induce the Samaritans to rise against their Roman masters. Then there is the incident of Judas, the Gaulonite, who created a disturbance of the people against the census of Quirinus; the story of the pretending prophet, Theudas, who claimed to possess the power to divide the waters of the Jordan to allow his followers to cross in safety.
In "Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" Professor Drews says (page 5):
"Does anyone seriously believe, in fact, that Josephus could have concealed from the Romans, who had long ruled over Palestine and were accurately informed as to the disposition of their subjects, the messianic expectations and agitations of his compatriots and represented them as harmless, in works which were especially concerned with their strained relations to their oppressors?"
The most important and illuminating fact, however, is that the passage about Jesus as the Messiah is not to be found in the early copies of Josephus. Not until the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (about A.D. 300) do we come across it, and it is claimed that all reference to this passage is worthless as historical material because of the deliberate falsifications of Eusebius. [1]


Also of the utmost significance is the absence of the Josephian passage in the controversies of the early church fathers. Not only is the passage not to be found cited in their voluminous disputes, but one fails to come across even a mention of it in work s where it would undoubtedly have appeared had it been in existence at that early day. It is not in the polemics of Tertullian, Cyprian, Justin or Origen. Valuable indeed, would this passage have been to Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew. [2]
Chrysostom, a careful reader of Josephus, wrote in the latter part of the fourth century. The quotation of the Josephian passage would have weighed strongly in favor of the church. But no mention is made of it in his works, and we are inclined to accept t he view of Remsburg that he was "too honest or too wise to use it."
Canon Farrar, in his "Life of Christ," vol. i, p. 63 (page 31 of the cheap edition), sums up the case in the following words: "The single passage in which he (Josephus) alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious."
The verdict of history has thrown this passage out. And thus the church remains without an iota of tangible evidence to uphold its claims for the historicity of Jesus.
Footnotes to Did Josephus Write It?
[1] Jakob Burkhardt considers the wily Eusebius to be "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." He elaborates on his character as follows: "After many falsifications, suppressions, and fictions which have been proved in his work, he has no right to be put forward as a decisive authority, and to these faults we must add a consciously perverse manner of expression, deliberate bombast, and many equivocations, so that the reader stumbles upon trapdoors and pitfalls in the most important passage s." (Leben Konstantins, 2d edition, 1860, pp. 307, 335, 347.)
[2] Vossius, in the 16th century, possessed a manuscript of Josephus which contained no mention of Jesus.​

Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth? by Historicus
 
Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:
"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."
Another authority, Bishop Warburton, called the TF a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." Remsburg further related the words of the "Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England," who stated:
"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject...."
"Cannon Farrar, who has written an ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious' (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).
"The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: 'That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.'"
And so on, with similar opinions by Christian scholars such as Theodor Keim, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas and Dr. Alexander Campbell. By the time of Dr. Chalmers and others, the TF had been so discredited that these authorities understood it as a forgery in toto and did not even consider it for a moment as "evidence" of Jesus's existence and/or divinity. In fact, these subsequent defenders of the faith, knowing the TF to be a forgery, repeatedly commented on how disturbing it was that Josephus did not mention Jesus.


In addition to acknowledging the spuriousness of the Josephus passage, many authorities quoted here agreed with the obvious: Church historian Eusebius was the forger of the entire Testimonium Flavianium. Various reasons have already been given for making such a conclusion. In "Did Jesus Really Live?" Marshall Gauvin remarks:
"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room."
Regarding the absence of the TF in the writings of earlier Christian fathers and its sudden appearance with Eusebius, CMU says:
"it has been observed that the famous passage which we find in Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned or alluded to in any way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries; nor until the time of Eusebius, 'when it was first quoted by himself [sic].' The truth is, none of these fathers could quote or allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all points short of absolutely certain, forged and interpolated by Eusebius, as suggested by Gibbon and others. Even the redoubtable Lardner has pronounced this passage to be a forgery." (CMU, 79-80)​

Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium
 
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
  1. Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
  2. Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
  3. Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
  4. Jewish belief is based on national revelation.


Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus, why Jews reject Jesus

Judaism generally views Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history.[1] Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.[2] However, since the mainstream Jewish belief is that the Messiah has not yet come and that the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism. At the heart of Judaism are the Torah, its commandments, the Tanakh, and ethical monotheism such as in the Shema — all of which predated Jesus.
Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God.

Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Bible is loaded with God directing 'evil/bad' things, but he himself never does it himself - it is always carried out by human hands and for a greater cause that eventually glorifies God.

.

Actually that claim can be proven dead wrong real quick, note the first person autobiographical "I WILL"


I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)


(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die
." [The child dies seven days later.]

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
More Rape and Baby Killing
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
(Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.)

All of these killings, and more, are found in the Bible, and the God of the Bible is proud of each one.
Here is what he says about them: I kill ... I wound ... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. -- Deuteronomy 32:39-42

These stories fill the pages of the Bible, yet they are seldom read in any church and are completely ignored by most Bible believers.

If these atrocites were attributed to Satan, you would have no problem rightly condemning such vile filth, if they were attributed to Hitler or any other number of tinpot dictators, you would recognise the acts as beyond heinous, truly evil.
hateful; odious; abominable; totally reprehensible

But you dont dare question god ,even when he claims responsibility in the first person narrative.

And lets not forget the great flood, penguins in the south pole who had never seen a man, wiped out by god along with all the other innocent animals.
Christian apoligists often say oh well man was wicked it was mans fault.

That just gave god the motive, he also had the means and opertunity and HE did it.
To say it was mans fault when only god could have done the actual deed, is akin to blaming the rape victim because she was known to be promiscious and had been flashing her boobs on the night the rape took place.

The real good news is it didnt happen, the earth isnt 6000 years old and its all just a story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
myth-busted-stamp.jpg
 
One positive thing I can say about 8 yrs of Catholic School- by the time I reached highschool(public) I did have certain advantage over my peers in the arts when or where the artist did mention anything regarding the old/new testament. I'll use the Rolling Stones tune sympathy for the devil as one example. "Who was pilot, and what's this about washing his hands" -Grateful Dead's "Sampson and Delilah" just a couple examples where I felt I had "got it" when such artists (Dylan included) whould ref a biblical story. Now, this was long before the internet, so I suppose any curious kid could just google their curiousity. One other detail, I was a 70's - 80's kid, so I most of the old abusive nuns were about gone from the classrooms- and even though we had a few odd priests, that was as far as that went.
 
Here is something more to add to the mix: Jesus survived the crucifixion and eventually made his way to Kashmir in India. The Muslims living there called him Isa or Issa and he is buried in the Rozabal section of Srinagar.


Jesus survived for 600 years?

the founder of Islam was not born until the sixth century AD, and therefore there were no "Muslims" in India or anywhere else until after he was born (570 AD).
 
Regarding Flavius Josephus: I was in a discussion just a few weeks ago with a pastor who insisted Josephus' Antiquities were proof that Jesus was mentioned outside of the gospels. Among the points this person failed to grasp, were:
  1. Josephus' birth was in 37 C.E., well past the alleged date of Jesus' crucifixion.
  2. Antiquities was written in 93 C.E., which is considered to be after the first gospels were written.
  3. As Mike mentioned, many scholars believe these very short accounts of Jesus' life were nothing more than a fiction inserted into Antiquities by the early church.
  4. If Antiquities provides "evidence" that Jesus existed, it provides far more "evidence" that Hercules existed. Seriously, Hercules was discussed as a historical person far more often than Jesus. One example is in Antiquities, Book 1, Chapter 15, which gives a detailed account of Hercules battling Libya and Antaeus, later explaining how Hercules married and had a son. There are many other accounts of Hercules as an actual person, being a common theme throughout the book. By comparison, Jesus is barely mentioned.
We can therefore draw a few conclusions:
  • Hercules played a far greater role in the life and culture of Flavius Josephus than did Jesus.
  • Antiquities relied more on hearsay and common mythology than eyewitness accounts.
  • The brief mentions of Jesus, especially when compared to Hercules, may well be nothing more than a quick edit to provide some "evidence" of Jesus' life.
  • At the most, the life of Jesus is nothing more than an afterthought in a book that stresses other, more dominant, mythologies.
We should also consider that ancient texts are still being found which utterly contradict the texts that were inserted into our present bible, assuming they make any reference to biblical stories at all. Remember, the Romans were absolutely excellent record keepers, yet they make no mention of Jesus ever having lived or executed, even though they have detailed accounts of other lives, transactions and executions which were much more mundane than the execution of a messiah. Then we should consider that books which were once so important to the bible that it was considered heresy not to believe in these, were later removed and considered heresy to even mention them.
 
Actually that claim can be proven dead wrong real quick, note the first person autobiographical "I WILL" [\quote]
I think you missed my point and you examples do not address it. I am not arguing that God did not cause evil events to come about but rather there are many cases where he brings about evil deeds through the willing actions of moral creatures (humans). There lots of them, in addition to what you listed below. My point was, is that nowhere in the Bible does it show God *directly doing anything evil*. The Bible never blames God for evil or shows God as taking pleasure in evil. I think your examples below are consistent with what I am saying: 1) none of them show God directly doing the evil deed and 2) none of them show God as taking pleasure in that evil deed. God is an infinite being and we are not, he has many attributes such as omniscience, truthfulness, faithfulness, goodness, mercy, holiness, righteousness, jealousy, wrath, will, omnipotence, perfection, glory...and so on. He is the ultimate standard for all of these attributes and he is all of them at the same time. Who are we to make claims about his intent and his will?
Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT), (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB), (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT), (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB), (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT), (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT) [\quote] All good examples of God bringing about 'evil' deeds. No arguments here.
(Jeremiah 51:20-26) (Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.) [\quote]
Once again, you are failing to see the whole story here and pulled one piece out of context. Yes, you are correct that Babylon defeated them in Jeremiah chapter 52, but this was all part of God's plan as described earlier in Jeremiah 25:12 and Jeremiah 29:1-14, where it clearly states that the people will anger God and he will cause them to be defeated by Babylon, be ruled for 70 years, and then bring the end to Babylon and continue the lineage of David (by the fact that Jehoiachin was treated very well for the rest of his life). So, in the end, there are no problems/contradictions here, as is fully documented, God did exactly what he said he was going to do.
.... great flood ... [\quote]
Again, a sly comment about God's motives of the Flood are completely out of context. And this is a large context, because it involves most of the whole Bible. The whole purpose of the flood was to rid the Earth of defilement (caused by human wrongdoing) thus giving a new start. However, because people's nature had not changed we are who we are. But, in preserving Noah and others, he was able to maintain the full lineage down to Jesus (which is good news for everybody, if they choose to believe)..thus fulfilling what was first mentioned in Genesis 3:15 (a reference to the coming of Jesus), and all of the other promises, many times (300+ of them - what other document written over 1000+ years, by ~40 authors, in at least 3 different languages spread across 3 different continents can do this?).
I can't stress enough about putting things in context. Any quote from any source can easily be taken out of context and interpreted wrongly. In addition, if people don't believe in the Bible, then they can't surely quote it to make a argument against the same source. I don't think it is surprising that this discussion can still happen these days - people either take notice of their life and the purpose of it or they simply accept that there is not a purpose and everything is reduced to pure randomness with no real purpose - where the two meet, conflict arises.
Mike - we can argue all day long on this and I agree that you have brought up good points to discuss (and these have been debated for a long time - so I doubt we are going to get anywhere). Personally, I don't think there is any book in the history of mankind that has changed millions of people over the last 2000 years, that has been so relevant to everyones life, and with a overall positive message, and with a complete history and definition of purpose, as the Bible. All of the fine details can be argued, but those are just details (i.e. age of earth - Bible makes no statements on age of earth or defines a time scale associated with Genesis creation. Looking at the usage of the old Hebrew suggests the word for day can mean a much longer period of time.)- anyways, what is the point of the Bible? That is what is important.
I enjoy these discussions, but they are quite exhaustive, especially if I'm going put things in context with quotes from legitimate research and reading the actual material - something I can't devote a lot of time into right now. So.. I say, let's table this discussion here, or create a new thread and investigate 1 claim at a time, or just go back to finding the truth about ufology.
 
Who killed the first born of egypt ? including the animals ?

God

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

none of them show God directly doing the evil deed

Your claim none of them show god doing the killing directly, is proven false by these and many more passages

And again you dodge the very clear first person narrative of "i will"

I kill ... I wound ... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. -- Deuteronomy 32:39-42

In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you. I will pour out my indignation upon you, breathing my fiery wrath upon you, I will hand you over to ravaging men, artisans of destruction. You shall be fuel for the fire, your blood shall flow throughout the land. You shall not be remembered, for I, the LORD, have spoken. (Ezekiel 21:33-37 NAB)


When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. (2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)

God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,
sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19

I hear a lot from Christians about God’s “infinite compassion and mercy”.
Instead of harping on me about something so unapparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. (Please open your Bibles to Numbers 31) The following verses are a classic example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of the same God they claim to be so merciful. A quick sample of this tale: On the way to the promised land, God had Moses wage a war campaign against the Midian. Moses was told to put every Midianite to death, plunder anything of value, set fire to their towns where they lived and all their encampments. Moses gave the orders to his troops (the sons of Israel) and went on a further campaign. On the return of his troops Moses was enraged with the commanders of the army. He said, “Why have you spared the life of all the women and children? You are to kill all the children and kill all the women who have slept with a man. The lord says spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves, so that we may multiply into a great nation.” Yes, friends, this is biblical infinite mercy and compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed the young girls to be kept for later raping.

I have had some Christians proclaim that these Midianite girls were not taken for raping but marriage. How ridiculous! If you continue further in the scripture you will find that marriage to a Midianite was a crime against God. A man named Zimri, broke the law and married a Midianite woman this angered God so he sent a plague among the Hebrews. Fortunately, a zealous son of Israel speared Zimri right through the genitals, and the plague went away. So now I ask you, if you could not marry a Midianite, just what were these “virgin woman who were to help multiply” good for?

I don’t think the first born in Egypt during the captivity would have agreed with the verdict of compassion and mercy either. (Exodus 11:5 & 12:29) First of all, Jehovah is the one who purposely hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he would not let Moses and the Jews go. God messed with someone’s free will. God could have even teleported the Jews out of captivity without bloodshed, or put the Egyptians to sleep while they left, but no. God decided to set up a situation in which he knew he would have to punish the Pharaoh. Though this he didn’t even do. He punished the children instead. Judging from God’s previous actions, killing innocent children is much more his forte.

Lastly, please attempt to read the entire book of Joshua some evening. It is a long sequence of atrocities. I have not given all these quotes for space reasons. I urge you to look them up for yourself. Especially for Christians who are not familiar with the bible. It will leave you not only shocked and in question of just what you are worshiping, but it will give a new definition to all morality you claimed was a derivative of God. If by some chance you read Joshua and you are still compliant with the loving notion of God, I suggest you re evaluate your code of ethics.

Why I am Not a Christian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In addition, if people don't believe in the Bible, then they can't surely quote it to make a argument against the same source.

What an utterly absurd thing to say.

So only those who believe in it can quote it, and naturally enough if they believe in it, they wont use that quote to make an argument against it.

If thats your last line of defense, stacking the deck to silence the critics....... then you've lost the debate already.

I believe the bible is the word of man,(like every single other book ever written) and that quoting it proves this premise.

Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 7:8). Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of plant species? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn’t last long if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don’t tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.

All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies could do as well!

When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?

Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.


The list of scientific absurditys goes on and on

Absurd Torah Science

The evidence as can be quoted from the bible, points to the writings of ignorant men, not an omnipotent god


b629e6a4ec3e6028b810205319a1ab1a.jpg
 
GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things including plants, animals, women and innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a house to rid it of mice.)
GE 6:15 The size of Noah's Ark was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard.

GE 4:15 A mark is placed on Cain as a distinctive identifying symbol when there were only three (known) persons on earth.
GE 4:17 Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two generations.

GE 9:12-16 God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time.)


GE 30:37-43 Jacob alters the genetic characteristics of cattle by letting them view a striped rod. (Note: His purpose in doing so was to fleece Laban of his cattle.)

EX 28:34-35 Entering the holy place without wearing bells can result in death.
LE 11:20-21 There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs, and all insects have six or eight legs.)
LE 11:6 (States, incorrectly, that the rabbit, or hare, chews its cud.)
LE 14:33-57 God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy.
LE 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.

MT 4:8 There is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. (Note: This implies a flat earth.)


MK 16:17-18 Those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm.


Bible Absurdities: Absurdities in the Bible

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories—stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional—were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.
The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.

If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect—accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout—as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.
Fundamentalists, in fact, hold this to be true. Using a circular argument, they say that because the Bible is without error or inconsistency, it must be the work of God, and because it is the work of God, it must be without error or inconsistency. It seems not to matter which proposition comes first, the other is thought to follow.
Notwithstanding the fundamentalist viewpoint, however, the Bible does contain a number of real problems. And some of these problems are absolutely fatal to its credibility.
Many passages relate God-ordained atrocities; such passages are unworthy of the Christian God. Some biblical precepts are both unreasonable and unlikely since they are in obvious disagreement with common sense as well as the qualities of character which are attributed to God. Some biblical statements are absurd in that they represent very primitive beliefs. The believability of many biblical stories—stories that are crucial to Christianity—are discredited by numerous inconsistencies. The picture is further complicated by the many different and conflicting interpretations that are often given to a specific passage by sincere, well-intentioned believers.
While Biblicists are capable of offering some sort of explanation for nearly any biblical problem that can be uncovered, such explanations should be unnecessary. The point is not whether some explanation can be conceived, but rather that a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God certainly could, should, and would do a much better job of it were he to have anything to do with the writing of a book.
The evidence which follows, taken from the Bible itself, is but a small portion of that which exists. This evidence demonstrates that the Bible cannot be the literal, complete, inerrant and perfect work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God. It also demonstrates that the Bible is not especially useful even as a guidebook. In addition, because the Bible reflects every important belief of traditional Christianity—the foundation of Christianity itself rests on shaky ground.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top