Jesus Said WHAT?!

[Spare_change]

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

Try again------Jesus quoted HILLEL
incessantly-------just what is there that
you imagine that jesus "taught" that was
innovative? -----(hillel was a person who died
at about the time that jesus was born-----he
was quoted and is still quoted -------all the time)

You call THAT an argument??? Hillel greatly influenced Judaism at that time ... during his youth, Jesus was exposed to his influence constantly. Why would you NOT expect him to be influenced by it?

Quit trying to fabricate a fallacious argument ... you're not very good at it.

 

[irosie91]

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

Try again------Jesus quoted HILLEL
incessantly-------just what is there that
you imagine that jesus "taught" that was
innovative? -----(hillel was a person who died
at about the time that jesus was born-----he
was quoted and is still quoted -------all the time)

You call THAT an argument??? Hillel greatly influenced Judaism at that time ... during his youth, Jesus was exposed to his influence constantly. Why would you NOT expect him to be influenced by it?

Quit trying to fabricate a fallacious argument ... you're not very good at it.

you invented the idea that Jesus taught something INNOVATIVE >>>>

*****Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion******

Hillel was teaching that which he considered
already existed in Judaism-----no claim to innovation

 

[Spare_change]

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

Try again------Jesus quoted HILLEL
incessantly-------just what is there that
you imagine that jesus "taught" that was
innovative? -----(hillel was a person who died
at about the time that jesus was born-----he
was quoted and is still quoted -------all the time)

You call THAT an argument??? Hillel greatly influenced Judaism at that time ... during his youth, Jesus was exposed to his influence constantly. Why would you NOT expect him to be influenced by it?

Quit trying to fabricate a fallacious argument ... you're not very good at it.

you invented the idea that Jesus taught something INNOVATIVE >>>>

*****Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion******

Hillel was teaching that which he considered
already existed in Judaism-----no claim to innovation

I presume that you are aware that Jesus was initially a rabbi in the House of Hillel, right? I also assume you are aware that Jesus considered himself a reformer within that House. He had no illusions that he was creating a new religion, but rather, brought to the teachings of Hillel a different, and until that time, unique perspective of the Jewish writings.Jesus was especially given to quoting the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, even in conflict with Hillel.

Where in the Bible Jesus attacks Jews for being legalistic and lacking in compassion, he is siding with the House of Hillel and attacking the House of Shammai. At this point we have an internal philosophical debate within Judaism, not Jesus as an outsider. Jesus said, "the letter kills but the spirit gives life." This was the Hillel side of the debate--for compassion.

Hillel was a proponent of very heavy patriarchial, anti-woman bias in traditional Judaism. Jesus was, however, a reformer in emphasizing the right of women to sit with the men and learn with the men, and in emphasizing the compassionate aspect of the ethics of Hillel even more than Hillel himself did. His emphasis was on openheartedness and loving kindness, in contrast to Hillel's conformity with the punishment and segregation aspects of Judaism of that time. It is not an accident, however, that the money changers challenged by Jesus and driven from the temple were from the house of Hillel. That, probably more than any other single event, characterizes the difference between Jesus and Hillel.

Again - your argument makes no sense. Your inability to understand the nuances of what I said clearly indicate you have only a surface understanding and, sadly, it is leading you astray.

 

[irosie91]

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

Try again------Jesus quoted HILLEL
incessantly-------just what is there that
you imagine that jesus "taught" that was
innovative? -----(hillel was a person who died
at about the time that jesus was born-----he
was quoted and is still quoted -------all the time)

You call THAT an argument??? Hillel greatly influenced Judaism at that time ... during his youth, Jesus was exposed to his influence constantly. Why would you NOT expect him to be influenced by it?

Quit trying to fabricate a fallacious argument ... you're not very good at it.

you invented the idea that Jesus taught something INNOVATIVE >>>>

*****Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion******

Hillel was teaching that which he considered
already existed in Judaism-----no claim to innovation

I presume that you are aware that Jesus was initially a rabbi in the House of Hillel, right? I also assume you are aware that Jesus considered himself a reformer within that House. He had no illusions that he was creating a new religion, but rather, brought to the teachings of Hillel a different, and until that time, unique perspective of the Jewish writings.Jesus was especially given to quoting the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, even in conflict with Hillel.

Where in the Bible Jesus attacks Jews for being legalistic and lacking in compassion, he is siding with the House of Hillel and attacking the House of Shammai. At this point we have an internal philosophical debate within Judaism, not Jesus as an outsider. Jesus said, "the letter kills but the spirit gives life." This was the Hillel side of the debate--for compassion.

Hillel was a proponent of very heavy patriarchial, anti-woman bias in traditional Judaism. Jesus was, however, a reformer in emphasizing the right of women to sit with the men and learn with the men, and in emphasizing the compassionate aspect of the ethics of Hillel even more than Hillel himself did. His emphasis was on openheartedness and loving kindness, in contrast to Hillel's conformity with the punishment and segregation aspects of Judaism of that time. It is not an accident, however, that the money changers challenged by Jesus and driven from the temple were from the house of Hillel. That, probably more than any other single event, characterizes the difference between Jesus and Hillel.

Again - your argument makes no sense. Your inability to understand the nuances of what I said clearly indicate you have only a surface understanding and, sadly, it is leading you astray.

you have a citation for your very weird statement ----which is----but not limited to----"the money changers were from the house of Hillel"
As to women-----it was HILLEL who said
"if your wife is short (ie in stature) bend down so that you may hear her council"-----I do not recall Hillel as being into "the inferiority of women" -----unless you are referring to his insistence on no fault divorce----which would--IMO----be an incorrect conclusion on your part. I agree with you that Jesus started out in the house of Hillel and stayed there. The early Christian church was certainly into suppressing women---
but that was a greek and roman thing

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

Actually every thing you said is wrong. Jesus and or the writers of the Gospels were plagiarists. The were at least 10 Christs who proceeded Jesus of Nazareth.

10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus - Listverse

TRIGGER WARNING! The following post contains many historical facts. Some weak-minded individuals cannot handle the truth. Proceed at your own risk. This could damage your ignorance.

As a non-christian, I am approaching this topic purely as an interested observer. I am assuming half of the people who read this will automatically say the claims are false and the other half will say they are true.

10 Buddha



Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:

“When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self–possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty–nine years of age… “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). Both were tempted by the “devil” at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.” To Jesus, he said: “All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the “devil”: “Get you away from me.”

Jesus responded: “…begone, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic’s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.” (Matthew 5:29).

9 Krishna



According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

8 Odysseus



Homeric tales about Odysseus emphasize his suffering life, just as in Mark Jesus said that he, too, would suffer greatly. Odysseus is a carpenter like Jesus, and he wants to return his home just as Jesus wants to be welcomed in his native home and later to God’s home in Jerusalem. Odysseus is plagued with unfaithful and dim-witted companions who display tragic flaws. They stupidly open a magic bag of wind while Odysseus sleeps and release terrible tempests which prevent their return home. These sailors are comparable to Jesus’ disciples, who disbelieve Jesus, ask foolish questions, and show general ignorance about everything. It’s amazing that either Odysseus or Jesus ever manage to accomplish anything, given the companions they have, but this simply demonstrates the power and ability of the one true leader who has a divine mandate to lead the people out of darkness and into a brighter future.

7 Romulus



Romulus is born of a vestal virgin, which was a priestess of the hearth god Vesta sworn to celibacy. His mother claims that the divine impregnated her, yet this is not believed by the King. Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, are tossed in the river and left for dead. (A “slaughter of the innocents” tale which parallels that of Matthew 2:13-16). Romulus is hailed as the son of god. He is “snatched away to heaven” by a whirlwind (It is assumed that the gods took him), and he makes post mortem appearances. In his work Numa Pompilius, Plutarch records that there was a darkness covering the earth before his death (Just as there was during Jesus’ death according to Mark 15:33). He also states that Romulus is to be know afterwards as ‘Quirinus’; A god which belonged to the Archiac Triad (a “triple deity” similar to the concept of the Trinity).

6 Dionysus



Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.


5 Heracles



Heracles is the Son of a god (Zeus). It is recorded that Zeus is both the father and great-great- great grandfather of Heracles, just as Jesus is essentially his own grandpa, being both “The root and offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16) as he is part of the triune God which is the father of Adam and eventually of Jesus. Both are doubly related to the Supreme God.

Diodorus writes that,”For as regards the magnitude of the deeds which he accomplished it is generally agreed that Heracles has been handed down as one who surpassed all men of whom memory from the beginning of time has brought down an account; consequently it is a difficult attainment to report each one of his deeds in a worthy manner and to present a record which shall be on a level with labours so great, the magnitude of which won for him the prize of immortality.”

Jesus is also said to have done a very large number of good works. John 21:25 says that: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

Hera tries to kill Heracles as an infant by sending two serpents after him, yet Heracles survives by strangling them. This parallels Herod’s slaughter of the innocents in an attempt to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:13-16).

Heracles makes a descent into Hades and returns from it with Theseus and Peirithoüs, just as Jesus descends into the “lower parts of the earth” or Hades (Ephesians 4:7-8); Though Jesus does not bring anyone up from it. Heracles’ body is not found and he is assumed to have been taken by the gods:”After this, when the companions of Iolaüs came to gather up the bones of Heracles and found not a single bone anywhere, they assumed that, in accordance with the words of the oracle, he had passed from among men into the company of the gods.”

4 Glycon



In the middle of the 100s AD, out along the south coast of the Black Sea, Glycon was the son of the God Apollo, who: came to Earth through a miraculous birth, was the Earthly manifestation of divinity, came to earth in fulfillment of divine prophecy, gave his chief believer the power of prophecy, gave believers the power to speak in tongues, performed miracles, healed the sick, and raised the dead.

3 Zoroaster/Zarathustra



Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

2 Attis of Phrygia



Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

1 Horus



Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

Related: The John 3:16 Lie.

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Oh you fucking piece of shit... Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

You are a lot of things ... but a Biblical scholar ain't one of them.

Hey, you illiterate, tobacco-juice-dribbling fundamentalist, the Dark Ages called—they want their ideology back.

That's it? THAT is the best you got .... some ad hominem attack? Pretty childish, if you ask me.

It was not an attack it was a statement of fact. That's exactly the kind of laughable logic I'd expect from a brainwashed, Bible-banging tool of the Religious Reich.

Your ignorance, coupled with an ingrained sense of jealousy, disqualifies you from discussing the Bible. I recognize that your childish little tantrums are your way of validating your pathetic existence, but you clearly have demonstrated an in-depth lack of understanding of religious issues.

Listening to you pontificate on Biblical issues is like listening to you discuss sexuality ... you have no experience at either.

Leave it to a NeoCON bible believing nut bar to make a fact free statement.

I suspect that you are undertaking a vain and impossible task; for who can stop the mouth of a fool? You heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Related: Mark Twain on God

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

A voice of reason in a sea of lies.

 

[Spare_change]

You are a lot of things ... but a Biblical scholar ain't one of them.

Hey, you illiterate, tobacco-juice-dribbling fundamentalist, the Dark Ages called—they want their ideology back.

That's it? THAT is the best you got .... some ad hominem attack? Pretty childish, if you ask me.

It was not an attack it was a statement of fact. That's exactly the kind of laughable logic I'd expect from a brainwashed, Bible-banging tool of the Religious Reich.

Your ignorance, coupled with an ingrained sense of jealousy, disqualifies you from discussing the Bible. I recognize that your childish little tantrums are your way of validating your pathetic existence, but you clearly have demonstrated an in-depth lack of understanding of religious issues.

Listening to you pontificate on Biblical issues is like listening to you discuss sexuality ... you have no experience at either.

Leave it to a NeoCON bible believing nut bar to make a fact free statement.

I suspect that you are undertaking a vain and impossible task; for who can stop the mouth of a fool? You heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Related: Mark Twain on God

Some day, you are going to make a cogent contribution .... this just isn't that day.

 

[HaShev]

Wouldn't Mithra and the Sintos' "MIKADO" fall into that category top list?
The sickly man on the crooked cross the old Pope used to carry was a predated Mithraic relic found in Ireland.
Dec 25th birthday, many Mithraic churches existed in Rome especially in Tarsus where Paul (Apollonius) was from.

 

[shimon]

I was under the impression there were 16 crucified saviours...some of those are new to me...i realize it is based on the movement of the sun in the sky but mithras is missing as are some of the others...but it doesnt matter the names are changed as they loose their usefullness and other names are substituted for the mask to deceive the masses.... Funny how the vatican uses the term holy mass.... Maybe a private joke.....

 

[HaShev]

Like the joke - "Holy See"
for the church of the blind.

 

[shimon]

Yah....lol...the three blind mice or as it is said quite as church mice the blinders are on extremely tight actually so tight that the light of truth and knowledge cant be let in to the spiritual darkness of lies and folly..

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Hey, you illiterate, tobacco-juice-dribbling fundamentalist, the Dark Ages called—they want their ideology back.

That's it? THAT is the best you got .... some ad hominem attack? Pretty childish, if you ask me.

It was not an attack it was a statement of fact. That's exactly the kind of laughable logic I'd expect from a brainwashed, Bible-banging tool of the Religious Reich.

Your ignorance, coupled with an ingrained sense of jealousy, disqualifies you from discussing the Bible. I recognize that your childish little tantrums are your way of validating your pathetic existence, but you clearly have demonstrated an in-depth lack of understanding of religious issues.

Listening to you pontificate on Biblical issues is like listening to you discuss sexuality ... you have no experience at either.

Leave it to a NeoCON bible believing nut bar to make a fact free statement.

I suspect that you are undertaking a vain and impossible task; for who can stop the mouth of a fool? You heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Related: Mark Twain on God

Some day, you are going to make a cogent contribution .... this just isn't that day.

Chances are you will get cancer and liar Jesus won't help you.

 

[Spare_change]

That's it? THAT is the best you got .... some ad hominem attack? Pretty childish, if you ask me.

It was not an attack it was a statement of fact. That's exactly the kind of laughable logic I'd expect from a brainwashed, Bible-banging tool of the Religious Reich.

Your ignorance, coupled with an ingrained sense of jealousy, disqualifies you from discussing the Bible. I recognize that your childish little tantrums are your way of validating your pathetic existence, but you clearly have demonstrated an in-depth lack of understanding of religious issues.

Listening to you pontificate on Biblical issues is like listening to you discuss sexuality ... you have no experience at either.

Leave it to a NeoCON bible believing nut bar to make a fact free statement.

I suspect that you are undertaking a vain and impossible task; for who can stop the mouth of a fool? You heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Related: Mark Twain on God

Some day, you are going to make a cogent contribution .... this just isn't that day.

Chances are you will get cancer and liar Jesus won't help you.

You are an insult to humanity ... but you do make a damn good troll.

 

[Fat Bastardo]

It was not an attack it was a statement of fact. That's exactly the kind of laughable logic I'd expect from a brainwashed, Bible-banging tool of the Religious Reich.

Your ignorance, coupled with an ingrained sense of jealousy, disqualifies you from discussing the Bible. I recognize that your childish little tantrums are your way of validating your pathetic existence, but you clearly have demonstrated an in-depth lack of understanding of religious issues.

Listening to you pontificate on Biblical issues is like listening to you discuss sexuality ... you have no experience at either.

Leave it to a NeoCON bible believing nut bar to make a fact free statement.

I suspect that you are undertaking a vain and impossible task; for who can stop the mouth of a fool? You heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Related: Mark Twain on God

Some day, you are going to make a cogent contribution .... this just isn't that day.

Chances are you will get cancer and liar Jesus won't help you.

You are an insult to humanity ... but you do make a damn good troll.

Judging by the way most humans behave I accept your complement. One man's troll is another man's skilled debater.

 

[Spare_change]

Your ignorance, coupled with an ingrained sense of jealousy, disqualifies you from discussing the Bible. I recognize that your childish little tantrums are your way of validating your pathetic existence, but you clearly have demonstrated an in-depth lack of understanding of religious issues.

Listening to you pontificate on Biblical issues is like listening to you discuss sexuality ... you have no experience at either.

Leave it to a NeoCON bible believing nut bar to make a fact free statement.

I suspect that you are undertaking a vain and impossible task; for who can stop the mouth of a fool? You heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Related: Mark Twain on God

Some day, you are going to make a cogent contribution .... this just isn't that day.

Chances are you will get cancer and liar Jesus won't help you.

You are an insult to humanity ... but you do make a damn good troll.

Judging by the way most humans behave I accept your complement. One man's troll is another man's skilled debater.

Then again ... one man's troll can also be everyone's insipid fool incapable of mounting a cogent argument.

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Leave it to a NeoCON bible believing nut bar to make a fact free statement.

I suspect that you are undertaking a vain and impossible task; for who can stop the mouth of a fool? You heart is crammed so full of nonsense and "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Related: Mark Twain on God

Some day, you are going to make a cogent contribution .... this just isn't that day.

Chances are you will get cancer and liar Jesus won't help you.

You are an insult to humanity ... but you do make a damn good troll.

Judging by the way most humans behave I accept your complement. One man's troll is another man's skilled debater.

Then again ... one man's troll can also be everyone's insipid fool incapable of mounting a cogent argument.

All you have are your lame insults because the debate is lost so I will leave you with the words of your hero and wonder Christian, Martin Luther...

"Listen, you ass, you are a particularly crass ass, indeed, you are a filthy sow!"

From On the Councils and the Church, pg. 72 of Luther's Works Vol. 41

 

[HaShev]

Chances are you will get cancer and liar Jesus won't help you.

But for only $49.99 you can get their infamous prayer rag with anointing oil (their cut up motor oil dip stick rag).
Batteries to shock you (feel the holy spirit)
not included.