The Bible is true

[Meriweather]

The story of James itself -----does not make much sense.
The Christian partyline about why the jews did not execute
Jesus is "jews could not execute ANYONE under roman
law" --------(an idea I never actually believed but it does exist
as the explanation as to why DA JOOOS FORCED PILATE
TO DO IT) -----suddenly---whilst still under roman rule-----
the Sanhedrin is "RE-EMPOWERED"???? ~~~ c'mon

I have an active imagination--and there has also been speculation by others. In the Gospel accounts, there are some historical notes that we Christians often gloss over as they have little to do with spiritual matters. But what caught my attention is that during the passover Jesus was arrested, there had been an uprising, and radicals had been arrested. We also know that one of Jesus' disciples (Judas) was known to associate with this cause. A person under arrest at this time was Jesus Barabbas. Bar (son of) Abbas (Fathers?) Interesting enough, Abban, indicates a priest.

Speculation, but had the son of a priest been caught up in the radical uprising and arrested by the Romans? And were the Jews priests, dismayed by this fact and possibly afraid that the arrest of one their sons might (rightly or wrongly) give Romans the excuse to eradicate the Jewish priesthood said, "It is better that one might die than many" and came up with their own plan of convincing the Romans the real radical was Jesus (who called himself Son of the Father) than the Jesus who was the son of a priest.

The bare bones of the account tells us that the Jews were upset enough by what happened to meet secretly at a time they would not normally gather, and they were doing all in their power to have Jesus Barabbas released and Jesus installed in his place.

 

[Meriweather]

The first Christians were very unsuccessful at converting Jews. Most Jews knew they had something better, so they would not leave Judaism for Christianity. (Remember: at the beginning it was nothing more than a very small messianic movement within Judaism, and after their "messiah" died, it was rather hard to convert Jews to their movement.)

So paul the inventor of christianity had to do something different. They had to develop appeal. So, they began to assume beliefs that pagan people found attractive. That was how they came up with the concepts of the trinity, transubstantiation, the need to "save" everyone through the resurrection of a messiah, virgin birth, and all the other wacky ideas of Christianity. All these were lifted straight from other religions, some of which preceded Christianity by 700 years. Pagans just lapped up things like demigods, gods having intercourse with humans, virgins giving birth. Such claims meant something to pagans, and they were already familiar with such beliefs from their own cultures. So leaving a pagan religion to join Christianity was not much of a stretch, especially after Paul declared that the pagans did not need to keep the Commandments of the Torah.

No, Paul didn't invent Christianity and incorporate pagan beliefs. He preached "Christ Crucified." Christianity lifted things from Judaism...but no other religion. Take a close look at the the differences between religions, and you will see what I mean.

I also have a love of Greek and Roman mythology and know it fairly well--definitely well enough to know that people who try to compare Christianity to Greek and Roman gods are stretching way too much. Second, everything they try to say came from the Greeks and Romans can be shown to have an even stronger adhesion to Jewish beliefs and practices.

Jews were converting to Christianity, especially after the Temple was destroyed. Christians were able to convince them of the validity of Christ as Messiah because the First Temple had been destroyed. David's Temple (the second one) had been replaced by Herod's Temple (the third one). It had been prophesied by an earlier prophet that this Temple would be destroyed. Jews reacted by teaching that both David's and Herod's Temples were the Second Temple--that the second Temple, built in David's time, was only renovated by Herod. They taught that the third temple was yet to be built, and insisted the prophets had spoken of an earthly messiah, not a spiritual one. So Judaism and Christianity parted ways.

 

[irosie91]

The story of James itself -----does not make much sense.
The Christian partyline about why the jews did not execute
Jesus is "jews could not execute ANYONE under roman
law" --------(an idea I never actually believed but it does exist
as the explanation as to why DA JOOOS FORCED PILATE
TO DO IT) -----suddenly---whilst still under roman rule-----
the Sanhedrin is "RE-EMPOWERED"???? ~~~ c'mon

I have an active imagination--and there has also been speculation by others. In the Gospel accounts, there are some historical notes that we Christians often gloss over as they have little to do with spiritual matters. But what caught my attention is that during the passover Jesus was arrested, there had been an uprising, and radicals had been arrested. We also know that one of Jesus' disciples (Judas) was known to associate with this cause. A person under arrest at this time was Jesus Barabbas. Bar (son of) Abbas (Fathers?) Interesting enough, Abban, indicates a priest.

Speculation, but had the son of a priest been caught up in the radical uprising and arrested by the Romans? And were the Jews priests, dismayed by this fact and possibly afraid that the arrest of one their sons might (rightly or wrongly) give Romans the excuse to eradicate the Jewish priesthood said, "It is better that one might die than many" and came up with their own plan of convincing the Romans the real radical was Jesus (who called himself Son of the Father) than the Jesus who was the son of a priest.

The bare bones of the account tells us that the Jews were upset enough by what happened to meet secretly at a time they would not normally gather, and they were doing all in their power to have Jesus Barabbas released and Jesus installed in his place.

I do not see any logic in your theory other than what I believe is a correct notion that BARABAS was not being crucified for
being a "thief" The romans did not crucify jewish petty
thieves------jewish courts tried them The romans crucified
DISSIDENTS against Rome. abbas does not mean priest------it can be used as an honorific title in Aramaic----
but in Hebrew it is father. Even in Hebraized Aramaic----
it is not used to be an honorific title----it stays "father" (I believe my information on this etymological issue is correct)---
in usage "father" abba----is OFTEN used to refer to
G-d----very often----you seem to have a sense that Jesus
invented the idea.. It could very well be that Barabas was a
POPULAR hero for being a dissident but I cannot think of any
reason why jews would want Jesus crucified or any reason
or for not killing him themselves -----if they so earnestly wanted him dead. The roman authorities would not care

 

[HUGGY]

It's 6:30 in the AM Sunday morning and on my radio station where I have been enjoying the sports broadcast previewing the up coming NFL playoffs started playing the fuckin Morman tabernacle blaring their religious nonsense in the form of choir songs.

FUCK !!!! This is the kind of intrusion I absolutely fuckin HATE about these crazy fuckin religious freaks !!!

NOW I have to get up from the puter and find a station that isn't attempting to poison the PUBLIC airways with fraudulent claims of life after death and such other cynical claims to trick dupes into giving a families resources into the coffers of these lying thieves.

 

[irosie91]

calm down------YOU are annoying people too

 

[MaxGrit]

Hahahah you got a message to go to Church.

 

[HUGGY]

calm down------YOU are annoying people too

Good !

It's a clear cut case of what comes around...goes around..

now be a good boy or girl and go piss up a rope.

 

[Mr Natural]

If the Bible is true, then where are the talking snakes today?

 

[Meriweather]

I do not see any logic in your theory other than what I believe is a correct notion that BARABAS was not being crucified for
being a "thief" The romans did not crucify jewish petty
thieves------jewish courts tried them The romans crucified
DISSIDENTS against Rome. abbas does not mean priest------it can be used as an honorific title in Aramaic----
but in Hebrew it is father. Even in Hebraized Aramaic----
it is not used to be an honorific title----it stays "father" (I believe my information on this etymological issue is correct)---
in usage "father" abba----is OFTEN used to refer to
G-d----very often----you seem to have a sense that Jesus
invented the idea.. It could very well be that Barabas was a
POPULAR hero for being a dissident but I cannot think of any
reason why jews would want Jesus crucified or any reason
or for not killing him themselves -----if they so earnestly wanted him dead. The roman authorities would not care

First, no, I do not have a "sense that Jesus invented the idea." What I did note is that there is a forum of "abba" used to designate the priestly profession. I also know there is a theory that when people were calling for the release of Jesus Barabbas, perhaps it was truer that the people were calling for the release of Jesus himself, who called himself Jesus Bar Abba.

Jesus was popular among the people. It is always risky to kill someone many people are fond of. However, if the Romans were to kill Jesus for being a dissident...different kettle of fish.

 

[HUGGY]

If the Bible is true, then where are the talking snakes today?

Washington DC. They are running the Republican party.

 

[DriftingSand]

I think the world would do just fine to keep the page with the 10 Commandments and toss the rest.

If I was forced to take a single page it would be the page containing the Christian Beatitudes but I don't intend on tossing ANY portion of the Bible.

 

[DriftingSand]

I am aware of the similarities. We are all one people, makes sense we would all share similar verbal histories. If you look at ANY two civilizations you will find similarities.

Read up on the history of the bible. Saint Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke as well as the Acts of the Apostles, personally traveled with the Apostle Paul. The Gospel of Mark was written about 30 years after Christ's death, so the story was still very fresh in the mind of the author (Could you write about something you experienced 30 years ago? I do).

Something very special happened 2000 years ago. Whether you choose to believe that it was the Son of God is up to you.

No one knows who the author of Mark was and it makes no sense that he would have waited 30 years to get around to the story that the future of mankind depends on.

It's not necessarily true that it took 30 years for the book of Mark to surface. That Gospel was likely written and existed before folks took note. But even if the complete book of Mark wasn't completely compiled until 30 years after the death of Christ doesn't mean that it's not a 100% true account of the actions of Christ and the activities that took place during the life of Christ.

 

[irosie91]

I do not see any logic in your theory other than what I believe is a correct notion that BARABAS was not being crucified for
being a "thief" The romans did not crucify jewish petty
thieves------jewish courts tried them The romans crucified
DISSIDENTS against Rome. abbas does not mean priest------it can be used as an honorific title in Aramaic----
but in Hebrew it is father. Even in Hebraized Aramaic----
it is not used to be an honorific title----it stays "father" (I believe my information on this etymological issue is correct)---
in usage "father" abba----is OFTEN used to refer to
G-d----very often----you seem to have a sense that Jesus
invented the idea.. It could very well be that Barabas was a
POPULAR hero for being a dissident but I cannot think of any
reason why jews would want Jesus crucified or any reason
or for not killing him themselves -----if they so earnestly wanted him dead. The roman authorities would not care

First, no, I do not have a "sense that Jesus invented the idea." What I did note is that there is a forum of "abba" used to designate the priestly profession. I also know there is a theory that when people were calling for the release of Jesus Barabbas, perhaps it was truer that the people were calling for the release of Jesus himself, who called himself Jesus Bar Abba.

Jesus was popular among the people. It is always risky to kill someone many people are fond of. However, if the Romans were to kill Jesus for being a dissident...different kettle of fish.

I am confused ----you wrote a "FORUM OF ABBA"---used
to designate the "priestly profession" I do not understand-------a nessageboard forum? "priest" for jews at that time was not actually a "profession"------it was
an hereditary thing-------one had to inherit the ability to be a priest-----and then kinda get voted in. --------the functioning priests at that time were ROMAN APPOINTEES generally members of sect called SADDUCEES. The romans were not inclined to crucify Sadducees-----they depended on them.

can you tell me ----sorta more clearly where you got the idea that "abba" designates a priest------amongst jewish speakers of Aramaic?---------maybe you are thinking of
chaldeans. When did Jesus call himself "jesus bar abba"?

 

[HUGGY]

The Bible is true

No .....it is not. Most of it is nonsense of the most obvious variety.

If it was a true attempt at documenting an accurate history of the times and events of the period that would be different but it is snake oil within a fraudulent attempt to concoct a self serving manual to manipulate the Christians of the day and justify the Roman's "new" state religion.

 

[guno]

Christians use circular reasoning with unsupported assumptions to justify their beliefs. They take each unsupported assumption and use it to justify another one, in effect, using "fiction to support fiction". Here are examples from their basic arguments defending their faith. This is what they typically say when asked to explain the basis of their beliefs

Question:


"How do you know the Bible is true? How do you know it is the word of God?"


Christian Answer:


"Because the Bible says it is God's word. The Bible is internally consistent and harmonious. Its writers, who lived thousands of years apart, agree on the same message. It also contains many fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the New Testament. The odds of that happening by chance, according to Christian theologians, are astronomical. The Bible also agrees with history, archaeology and science. It is the only book that is complete with a chronicle of humanity's history, salvation, and future predicament.

 

[irosie91]

Christians use circular reasoning with unsupported assumptions to justify their beliefs. They take each unsupported assumption and use it to justify another one, in effect, using "fiction to support fiction". Here are examples from their basic arguments defending their faith. This is what they typically say when asked to explain the basis of their beliefs

Question:


"How do you know the Bible is true? How do you know it is the word of God?"


Christian Answer:


"Because the Bible says it is God's word. The Bible is internally consistent and harmonious. Its writers, who lived thousands of years apart, agree on the same message. It also contains many fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the New Testament. The odds of that happening by chance, according to Christian theologians, are astronomical. The Bible also agrees with history, archaeology and science. It is the only book that is complete with a chronicle of humanity's history, salvation, and future predicament.

gee------I read the NT------I was struck with its inconsistancies and in some cases-------misinterpretations of OT commonly
accepted by Christian scholars and------fallacies about the
Judean society at that time. One of the very important ideas is "jewish courts could not execute people at that time"-----------I am utterly confused by that one-----I don't
believe that it is true. If jewish courts could not execute
people at that time----what is the fate of story of the prostitute and "cast the first stone"

 

[irosie91]

if you need to resort to INTERNAL CONSISTENCY-----the Koran is INTERNALLY most consistent. -----silly stuff----
and a very flawed and messed up repetition of the OT
account of history-------the Koran was clearly written as a
group effort all together in a fairly short period of time as
opposed to the OT and NT----which span many years
in history and authorship

 

[Dajjal]

The Bible is true

No .....it is not. Most of it is nonsense of the most obvious variety.

If it was a true attempt at documenting an accurate history of the times and events of the period that would be different but it is snake oil within a fraudulent attempt to concoct a self serving manual to manipulate the Christians of the day and justify the Roman's "new" state religion.

I agree the bible is largely bunk, but that does not mean there is no God.

 

[HUGGY]

The Bible is true

No .....it is not. Most of it is nonsense of the most obvious variety.

If it was a true attempt at documenting an accurate history of the times and events of the period that would be different but it is snake oil within a fraudulent attempt to concoct a self serving manual to manipulate the Christians of the day and justify the Roman's "new" state religion.

I agree the bible is largely bunk, but that does not mean there is no God.

It isn't proof for a god either. In fact it is a sort of a proof that if there was/is a god he/she/it certainly never spoke to any human beings around the time of this guy Jesus.

 

[DriftingSand]

The Bible is true

No .....it is not. Most of it is nonsense of the most obvious variety.

If it was a true attempt at documenting an accurate history of the times and events of the period that would be different but it is snake oil within a fraudulent attempt to concoct a self serving manual to manipulate the Christians of the day and justify the Roman's "new" state religion.

I agree the bible is largely bunk, but that does not mean there is no God.

It isn't proof for a god either. In fact it is a sort of a proof that if there was/is a god he/she/it certainly never spoke to any human beings around the time of this guy Jesus.

Jesus was and IS God. He spoke to many!!