ADN

As you may all know, I been doing this Bible thing for a while now.

I am going to ask some questions... these will let you see some of the DEFINITIVE and EVIDENT proofs that this book is nonsensical without homework into Jewish thought and life, and if you will use it, you have to rebuild it for yourself. Jesus was a Jew who taught jusiasm to Gentiles, and was an intitiate of the esoteric teachings of the Essenes.

First of all, The Greatest misnomer is that the Greek Bible will be definitive. It is not so. The oldest forms of the New Testament are Coptic. The oldest forms of the Greek are actually demotic script, and not all from the same time. The "Greek New Testament" was developed by the council of Nicea, who was formed in 325 AD. The oldest coptic texts are from 44 AD. They make no mention of half the stuff in the "Standard Greek text" which was the backbone of the Pauline christians who perverted the story of Jeshua ben Joseph with Greek Melodrama, Pagan demigod status, and Hellenistic thought.

Simply from the textual analysis, it is easy to tell that the Book of John, for example was written by someone who was never alive until almost 200 years after Jesus's death. Even better, it is not even internally consistent. It is clear that some anti-semite contexts are heavily leaned upon in John, and this is the only book of the Bible where jesus says he is the son of God... elsewhere, the context is NEVER this.

And Luke plainly, the historian of the Group has inconsistencies, and neither of these vibe with Matthew or Mark. Some of these contain jewels from the Torah, or other Jewish scriptures. Others calim the scriptures say something and they do not.

if they were all just different sides of the stories, that is fine. But the glaring issue is the fact that none of these books were written in the same age of development of Greek and that can not be ignored.

Later, this text suffers some of the greatest mistranslations ever, but even worse it included additions and SUBTRACTION even from the words supposed to be Jesus's own for "he who hath ears." which is an entirely roman concept from "He who hath ears, let him hear the victory cries of Rome this day!".

Consider the following evidences:

In John, chapter 5, verse 31, Jesus says: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." then he reportedly exclaims: "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true (John 8:14)."

Furthermore, to make matters even more confused and conflicted, this passage was added to the Christian Bible in the sixth century. It is first found in a paper called "Liber Appologeticus" in the fourth century. It is noted that the words are sixth century additions to the original text. These words are not in any of the early Greek manuscripts or in the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate (The Latin Bible) itself.

In John, chapter 7, verse 38, Jesus reportedly says: "Scripture said: 'From his belly shall flow rivers of living water'." There is no such passage in the Hebrew Scriptures or anything resembling it.

Matthew 2:23 says that: "He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." There is no mention of this in the Hebrew Scriptures."

John 17:12 mentions a "son of perdition" and says the "scriptures are being fulfilled." There is no reference, however, to a "son of perdition" in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jesus says that it was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was killed in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 23:35). Apparently Jesus didn't read the Bible very closely or he would have known it was a completely different Zechariah, whose father was Jehoiada, who was killed there (II Chronicles 24:2-22).

Regarding Jesus' stepfather.
He was Joseph son of Jacob son of Mattan son of Eliezer (Matthew 1:15-16) or Joseph son of Eli son of Mattat son of Levi (Luke 3:23-24)?
And how can both sets of genealogical tables validly include Shealtiel and Zerubabbel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27), given that both of these men are descendants of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:16-19), of whom God said: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22-30)?

Who's to judge the sinner?
According to Jesus in John, chapter 5, verse 22: "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself). But, then Jesus contradicts himself; "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." So who did? Listen to Jesus this time: "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)."

John, chapter 14, verse 9 says: "he who has seen me (in reference to Jesus) has seen the Father." This would include his mother, disciples, and others. However, the Torah says that "He who has seen the face of God shall die (Exodus 33:20)." This is why Moses can only be shown his hindparts. This Torah verse amounts to eternal damnation for those who God looks upon directly.

According to Acts 7:53 and Galations 3:19, the Holy Torah was given to the Jewish people by "angels." But, according to Exodus 20:1, it was given to Moses by God: "And God spoke all these words."

Jesus tells Peter to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Peter reportedly uses his sword to cut off the ear of a Temple guard (John 18:10; Matthew 26:52-53). But Jesus, even though he urged Peter to buy a sword, and he even directly criticizes Peter: "All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52)."

Continuing with Matthew 26, we find in verses 17 through 20 that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. On the contrary, we find in John 19:14 that it was the preparation day for the Passover.

Romans, chapter 10, verse 13: "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But Matthew, chapter 7, verse 21 says "Not everybody who says to me (Jesus), Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom."

Further, why does John 8:14 say that: "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true." Then John 5:31 says "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is not true?"

The claim is made that Jesus "justified" the sinner (Romans 4:5; Romans 15:9). But, the Bible in Proverbs 17, verse 15 teaches that "He who justifies the sinner is an abomination to God."

vertical,
raum

Lovely post...

Just so that I'm clear about it, what is its intended purpose..? What good is this information, and more importantly is there a person here that believes in teh bible so much that they can refute those things...

I have studied the Bible as much as Adiriel has (if not more) and what he says is absolutely true. The Bible as we have it today has been so editorialized with additions, subtractions, misinterpretations among other things. That's why it is so easy for anyone to "prooftext" just about any position they might have. There are so many contradictory statements that one can find a passage that agrees with their own position and "prove" their point. That's one BIG reason I don't go to "church" anymore.

Deep,

I know you know I know you know I know you read these topics and know alot you don't say. Heh, but why don't you ever drop some some grit on these topics?

Ayhja, et al;

I put this topic up to particularly inform and discuss the content of the Bible. I do not believe in the Bible as a single definitive source of God's word. I in fact believe quite the opposite. I KNOW and HAVE EVIDENCE that the book is contrived... and many parts of it were developed by Paul of Tarsus, the Greek Jew, and his followers.

That does not mean it is useless. I am not a Pauline Christian, but I did study the Bible alot, and it is a book that has alot of influence and distribution. Most people don't know much about it, but it is not exactly like the need to, as it is a book of MYTHOS based on Jeshua Ben Joseph, a man who sought to expose the inner teachings he had learned in Rabbinical studies, and bring Judiasm to Non-Jews (including samaritans). He was nto the first, and he was not the last. He was initiated as an Essene, and traveled the silk road bringing "Yahwism" and "Rhabbitai" (sacred teachings) with him wherever he went.

Paul knew this, and his story changes erratically. This strongly indicates he did not even compile his own works. Furthermore, there is alot of evidence pointing to the fact that Paul was driven mad; the cause being the same strain of syphilis (non-venereal endemic syphilis). The greatest reason for this is that he persecuted Jews, who would then be sent back to Jerusalem who had commited crimes. At the time, the Jews who banished themselves were wealthy, or living in quarrantined colonies. The wealthy were not EVER being sent back, for they had bought their Greco-Roman distinction. This leaves the lepers and the blind and the mad from syphilis. i suspect it is likely he had the same condition that Freidrich Nietzsche suffered from. Syphilis has caused mankind to recieve some of its greatest speeches, books, and events. "There is a reason it is called the disease of poets and kings," - Not that I want it.

So, furthermore, I believed that each version, translation, or language instance of the Bible creates a new "level" to the mythos, many of which contradict, and all of which have internal contradictions. All of this is formed into two bodies of evidence for modern Pauline Christianity -" The Doctrine" and the "The Story." Neither of these have much to do with The Torah, which is "supposed" to form the backdrop of The New Testament. It is actually in the teachings of the Greek Philosophers, the Pagani ( "unwritten" or "illiterate"), Myths of the people conquered by the Romans, and all the other fare of the comedies and tragedies of the time.

It is for this reason, that except on extreme occasion, Jesus seems more like a Greek than a Jew. Because Paul had a Greek "heart" that sought to pump his Jewish blood.

So why, you may ask, does it seem at times I "believe" the bible, other times I challenge its authority, and other times I tear into it like the biggest atheist there is? Because it is a myth. And I moreover believe in the Power of Myth. I believe that a myth reveals the results of human capacity for self-analysis as an interaction of Divine personifications. I believe that studying myth (including the New Testament of the Bible) is a means to study the self. Just as I believe we build things to learn more about the principles of building things, so I believe we believe things to learn more about the principles of believing things.

vertical,
raum

I haven't studied the Bible enough to reply to Raum's post but I do know that the Bible is accuract. I dont' the book with me now but I have this book that makes reference to why it is. When I have time I'll post what it says

It is not about the accuracy of the method. There is no accuracy in the proposed claim of the origin of this book. The oldest of the texts is Mark. By phonemic analysis, Matthew and John are revealed as forgeries or later revisions with MAJOR embellishments, for they contain liguistic characteristics that would not show up for over a hundred years, in comparison to Mark. It is of no doubt they are probably meant to be "channeled" documents from the early necromantic practices of the Christians which permeated the religion due to the influence of the Essenes.

People don't seem to understand the early roots of Christianity, and so they will never be able to establish the validity of the message within its encoded archives, which have been promoted as some kind of "concentrated super-truth" which makes it impervious to spelling errors, contradictions, or incontinuity.

It's errors do not mean it is not of use... in fact quite the opposite. It becomes a perfect tool for Ghana Yoga- That is extrapolation of thought to reduce all knowledge to one unified idea,.. which should be internalized to serve as a focus for one's attainments of spiritual fortitude. This is how "will" becomes a viable asset to the aspirant.

vertical,
raum

QUOTE(trashtalkr)I haven't studied the Bible enough to reply to Raum's post but I do know that the Bible is accuract. I dont' the book with me now but I have this book that makes reference to why it is. When I have time I'll post what it says

Can't wait to read it..!

QUOTE(Jzyehoshua)I'll reply specifically to the things you give as your \"evidences\":

QUOTEIn John, chapter 5, verse 31, Jesus says: \"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.\" then he reportedly exclaims: \"Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true (John 8:14).\"

The 1967 Scofield notes answer this for 5:31:

2(5:31) Compare Jn. 8:14. The statement here (5:31) might be paraphrased as follows: \"If I bear witness of myself, ye will say my witness is not valid.\" Against this charge our Lord, in defending His Messianic claims, urges the Biblical rule of evidence which requires two or three witnesses (Num. 35:30; Dt. 17:6; Jn. 8:17-18). The additional witnesses are cited in vv. 32-47.





QUOTE
In John, chapter 7, verse 38, Jesus reportedly says: \"Scripture said: 'From his belly shall flow rivers of living water'.\" There is no such passage in the Hebrew Scriptures or anything resembling it.

Isaiah 12:3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.

Isaiah 43:20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
(read 55:2-5 as well to see that this is talking of the true riches and an everlasting covenant)







QUOTEMatthew 2:23 says that: \"He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene.\" There is no mention of this in the Hebrew Scriptures.\"

The Scofield has the following for 2:23:

2(2:23) \"He shall be called a Nazarene\" probably refers to Isa. 11:1, where the Messiah is spoken of as \"a rod [netzer] out of the stem of Jesse.\"





QUOTE
John 17:12 mentions a \"son of perdition\" and says the \"scriptures are being fulfilled.\" There is no reference, however, to a \"son of perdition\" in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Alright, my 1967 Scofield doesn't make mention of this but just off the top of my head I can think of one example:

Psalms 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.








QUOTEJesus says that it was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was killed in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 23:35). Apparently Jesus didn't read the Bible very closely or he would have known it was a completely different Zechariah, whose father was Jehoiada, who was killed there (II Chronicles 24:2-22).

Once again my Scofield (which I recommend you get btw, it's just a Bible version and can't cost much, and the notes are excellent, and even this 1967 one has an excellent index of annotations at the end showing all the topics mentioned by the notes) it has a commentary on this verse, Matthew 23:35:

3(23:35) This was probably the actual father of this martyr, Zechariah, who is designated in 2 Chronicles as son of his famous grandfather, Jehoiada, who had died at the advanced age of 130 before Zechariah began his ministry. Cp. 2 Chr. 24:15-20, 20-22; 36:16; Lk. 11:51.





QUOTERegarding Jesus' stepfather.  
He was Joseph son of Jacob son of Mattan son of Eliezer (Matthew 1:15-16) or Joseph son of Eli son of Mattat son of Levi (Luke 3:23-24)?  
And how can both sets of genealogical tables validly include Shealtiel and Zerubabbel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27), given that both of these men are descendants of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:16-19), of whom God said: \"No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah\" (Jeremiah 22-30)?

OOHH... I love this topic right here /:D" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt=":D" /> I should've brought up a subject before because it really shows forth the brilliance of God. You'll realize God's cleverness in His orchestration of genealogies and lines once reading this commentary from the Scofield for Matthew 1:11:

3(1:11) This man is called Coniah in Jer. 22:24-30, where a curse is pronounced upon him. There it is predicted that none of his seed should prosper sitting upon David's throne. Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, who was descended from Jeconiah, He could never reign in power and righteousness because of the curse. But Christ came through Mary's line, not Joseph's. As the adopted son of Joseph, the curse upon Coniah's seed did not affect Him.

um, i guess this came from a different forum, huh?

Where Jesus is quoted as having said QUOTE "From his belly shall flow rivers of living water." - there is no mention, not even in the book of Isiah.
This indicates he misquoted the scriptures that foretold HIS coming. That is lying about God's word, or Jesus making a mistake in his quoting of the Bible, or evidence that the Scriptures as popularly represented in othe languages have lost their cointinuity. At any rate, the sole unquestionable integirty of the New Testament comes into question...

QUOTE 2(2:23) \"He shall be called a Nazarene\" probably refers to Isa. 11:1, where the Messiah is spoken of as \"a rod [netzer] out of the stem of Jesse.\"

Oh MY GOD, that is a HUGE stretch!!!

Nazoraios = \"Nazarene\", and means \"one who is separated.\" It comes from Netzer, \"To grow apart\" (referring to the greeness of a plant which grows with no other plants to deprive its roots). Netzer comes from Natsar, which means \"One who is guarding, or \"watchman.\" This has nothing to do with the word \"Rod\" in hebrew which is \"Matteh,\" the basis of the name Matthais (a.k.a. Matthew) or Rhabdos, the Greek word for \"rod\" used in the New Testament! I don't buy it, the word \"Choter\" is used in Isiah 11:1, and it means \"branch,\" but is translated as \"rod\" by the council of Nicea, to purpose continuity to the rod of Aaron.

QUOTE
Alright, my 1967 Scofield doesn't make mention of this but just off the top of my head I can think of one example:

Psalms 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

nope, sorry. This verse you recall refers to Jesus's comments in Matthew 16:23, but has nothing to do with what I said.

A "Ben Ha-Chemosh" (which is what Son of Apoleia) never appears in the Torah. See, the idea is the word Apoleia... or "perdition." It refers to The Sun as Destroyer (called Apollyon).

i could disprove more of these, but i got things to do, and disproving on this about the claims of the bible THAT ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE just really causes the whole thing to fall apart, and each verse of the bible becomes a subject of scrutiny.

vertical,
raum

Yeah M8, this guy is from another forum...

But he knows scripture, or rather, will speak of it as if he doesn't put his bible down to take a shit...Every now and then, I go there to argue logic with them, but the minute I try, here cometh the scripture...I'm not attempting to argue with them, just seeing how far they'll go before they start spewing things out of their ass...