"Kill one person and you're a murderer...kill 100,000 and you're a conqueror...kill everyone and you're God!"(Anonymous)
If there is anything about the history or bibliography of the Bible or Koran that is made up or make believe, that would implicate that Jesus or Mohammad are made up or make believe as well. You may well ask, "What does it matter"? Sure there is nothing wrong with believing in things that don't exist, but the problem isn't with the believing part, the problem is with acting on those unfounded beliefs parts. For example, during the time of the Inquisitions, Christians everywhere believed that it would be morally insane to calmly stand by while thousands of unbelieving people in the world were being sent to Hell at their death, so any immoral or unrighteous act -- torture, maiming, burning alive -- was justifiable if it meant having the person confess a belief in God before they died so they would go to Heaven. They imagined God was pleased that they were forcing so many thousands of people to go to Heaven and they imagined themselves as saving the world. Ditto for Muslims and their never ending Jihads against all infidels. These people have never considered the thought that they were never helping anyone, but they were just being their true selves -- immoral and barbaric. Look at the history of what else blind faith can do: Witch Hunts, Crusades, the 100-year War, the Catholics vs the Protestants in Ireland, the persecution of Galileo and Copernicus and other scientists, and so on and so forth. The psychology of beliefs and how people relate to things that don't exist does matter, especially when such contrived beliefs can do more lasting harm to people then it can do to help them.
You make think that such immoral atrocities such as the Inquisitions are past history and wouldn't happen with modern day believers, but you would be dead wrong. In America in the 1980's and 1990's, many innocent people were persecuted and imprisoned over the forced confessions taken from little children about imaginary Satanic ritual abuses, abuses such as baby sacrifices, massacres of Christians, Nazi mind-control, magically mobilized killer bees, and children sex slaves. None of these things ever occurred, yet due to the totally blind faith thinking of certain religious or religiously-minded people, they believed anyway and convicted innocent people (see SATAN'S SILENCE: RITUAL ABUSE AND THE MAKING OF A MODERN AMERICAN WITCH HUNT by Debbie Nathan and Michael Snedeker, New York, NY: BasicBooks, 1995). So don't think it can't happen again or that it could never happen to you in modern times.
If the Bible parades something as fact that actually is fiction, the question is, can we distinguish the fact from the fiction? Yes we can. For example, it is obvious that in everyday reality, plants and animals do not talk in human languages, people do not rise from the dead, food doesn't fall from the sky for years on end, and God or Gods do not exist outside of the storytales told of them. So any claims that they do are obviously fictional. This is not a case of "different realities" because there can only be one reality and it supersedes all other claims of a different reality. That and because there is a way to test for reality and it is called logical thinking. I don't think anyone reading this article would have problems determining if Aesop's Fables is fact or fiction, so let's start with that.
In Aesop's fables, animals talk in human languages so we know that is fiction. Likewise, in the Torah, Balaam's donkey talks in a human language so we know that is fiction too. Now think about what that implies. If the talking donkey wasn't real, then Balaam was not real, King Moab was not real, Israel was never blessed by Balaam, Balaam never led Israel into sin, and the entire Book of Numbers is fictional. Numbers is a poor fiction with no sustained plot, is not profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness. Fiction never is. Fiction is only purely for entertainment. How many books do you know have fiction mixed in with non-fictional parts that want to be taken seriously? There are none. How can you trust a book that purports to tell you the "Truth" and then tells tall tales like a donkey talking to it's rider? You can't. Likewise, anywhere we read stories of someone who instantly heals people, or someone who curses fig trees and has them shrivel up, or someone who rises from the dead, we know it is fiction. These things do not happen in real life.
This does not mean that we cannot glean some wisdom and truth from reading the Torah or Aesop's Fables, but why would I why choose any fairytale in an attempt to find wisdom and truth? That in itself is not wise. For example, do you want to find lots of truth and wisdom on how to raise your children very well? It's not in the Torah or New Testament Bible. It's not in Aesop's Fables. But it is in NANNY 911. There are exceptions to the rule though. The research paper, THE BENEFITS OF FREQUENT POSITIVE AFFECT: DOES HAPPINESS LEAD TO SUCCESS (by Sonja Lyubomirsky, Laura King, and Ed Diener), describe a formula for happiness that is present in most religions: be grateful for what you have, practice being kind, be forgiving of your enemies, take care of yourself, be positive, and invest in friends and family. In the case of religion, remember to follow the exceptions, not the rule.
The Bible is a typical man-made item, full of false prophecies, blatant contradictions, inaccurate science, and revisionist history. Again, there is nothing wrong with believing in things that are full of false prophecies, blatant contradictions, inaccurate science, and revisionist history, the problem is with acting on those unfounded beliefs, as so many people have and do.
It is one thing to claim a book is not historically factual, contradicts itself, and is not scientifically accurate, and therefore makes the story of Jesus sound like a myth, fable, or other make believe story, but it is quite another thing to demonstrate it. So, in this, and the following sections, we will demonstrate all of these things (and more) within the Bible...
Jesus grew up in a city called Nazareth because of an Old Testament prophecy that said he would grow up in a city called Nazareth. Yet if you read the Bible, you will discover that the Old Testament never ever mentions the word "Nazareth". So how in the world could something that is never mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, be said to have been "spoken by the prophets"? One could understand such a blunder if it could be proven that Matthew simply misunderstood an actual prophecy or misquoted an actual prophecy, but Matthew slams the door shut for good on that only option when he proceeds to hang himself with his own rope by also making up history to go along with his make believe prophecy. Matthew does this by going on to claim that Nazareth was originally built on the brow of a hill, and then later moved to property adjacent to the original site. Jesus is thought to have died in 33AD, so that means that Nazareth existed before 33AD, yet real life history only supports one Nazareth and it didn't exist until 135AD -- over 100 years after Jesus supposedly existed! Current day Nazareth does not exist anywhere near a hill with a cliff and all of the hills closest to current day Nazareth do have any ruins of the original Nazareth, including the ruins of an ancient synagogue. Matthew is clearly and unambiguously caught red-handed telling a lie. If you can't trust Matthew to tell the truth about where Jesus grew up, how can you trust anything else Matthew says about Jesus? How can you trust any of the other gospels that stand behind Matthew? You can't!
Egyptian records and archaeological evidence disprove the idea that the Pharaoh Ramses II and his army drowned in the Red Sea, or that all of Egypt's first born died. Some will claim that this is because Egyptian records usually are lies created for propaganda reasons and not to be trusted. So what records are to be trusted in their place? The records of a country's enemies would surely capitalize on the misfortune of their enemies for propaganda reasons, just like Egypt did, but no such records of Egypt's enemies document any such disaster befalling the Egyptians as claimed by the Bible. The most trustworthy evidence around, archaeological evidence, also proves the Bible wrong in this respect. Soon after Pharoah's army died by drowning in the Red Sea, approximately one million Israelites were condemned to wander the wilderness for forty years, but yet there is absolutely no evidence that a group of one million nomads (and their animals) wandered about the wilderness for forty years, despite the fact that such a large number of people living for so long in such a region should have left tons of evidence. If archaeologists can find evidence of small bands of nomads who wandered the wilderness thousands of years of ago, surely they should be able to find evidence of a huge band of nomads who roamed there for forty years. What tons of evidence would they leave behind? How about tons of human excreta? How about leftover campfires? How about tons of animal excreta? And what about all those dead people? Everyone of those people that left Egypt died in the wilderness and didn't get to enter the promise land (with one exception). Where are all those make believe bones hiding at?
If the Gospels really were eyewitness accountings of a real life person, why are they such contradictory stories? The stories just don't tell things from a different viewpoint but are very different in their accountings as far as dates and times go or what was actually witnessed.
The two most important events in all of Christianity would have to be Jesus' crucifixion and his resurrection. These two events are at the heart and core of Christianity. So why does Mark say the crucifixion occurred AT the 3rd hour (9:00am) but John says the crucifixion occurred AFTER the 6th hour (12:00pm)! When was Jesus discovered to be resurrected? Again notice the account given in the Bible: Mark says it occurred AT the rising of the sun but John says it was STILL dark! Mary came to the tomb while there was still darkness in the account given in John, while Matthew turns around and says that Mary had came to the tomb when it was already light. The fact that John started his trip AFTER Mary, when it was light, yet when John arrived it was still dark!
Another example of this is the parable of the fig tree. So did it happen on the way to Jerusalem or on the way back? Well let me ask you this, if it was a parable, who told the parable? Jesus was not quoted as saying it. Who was then? The story of the fig tree was told as a narrative and not as a parable. It isn't an eyewitness accounting and it isn't a parable. What is it then? It is an example of how inauthentic and phony the gospels are.
The New Testament is a modern invention, dating to well after Jesus ever supposedly existed. The only standard by which the New Testament (NT) can be judged by is the Codex Vaticanus (Vatican 1209), which cannot be traditionally dated any earlier then the 4th century AD during the reign of Constantine. We can refer to earlier collections containing manuscripts by or about Christians that date before the reign of Constantine, but manuscripts "by or about Christians" (ie -- bibliographies, testimonies, etc) are not the same thing as manuscripts "by or about Jesus" (ie -- the Gospels). The reality is, there are only three major or mostly complete New Testament finds:
The reason for those omissions are because these other finds aren't called fragments for nothing, as they do not contain whole chapters or whole books of any actual existing New Testament Bible of their time. Most are just one or two sentences of something that sounds like it could have come from a pre-existing Bible -- if you use your imagination real hard like. It is assumed that these random bits and pieces came from a pre-existing New Testament Bible books but that is wishful thinking based on tradition and guesswork and not actual facts. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Shroud of Turin have all been radiocarbon dated (of which one item came before and one item came after the New Testament was supposed to have been written), yet not one of the above New Testament major finds has ever been subjected to that same radiocarbon dating. It is all based on the logical fallacy of affective error (the tendency to presume facts of what we wish were true), the datings being based instead on paleographic guesswork or unreliable tradition. In other words, someone looked at the script and writing style and then made a guess as then when they thought it was first composed or they just invented a date out of thin air...
So historically, the New Testament appeared to have slowly evolved over time, since there was no universally recognized New Testament canon or books of the Bible until after the Council of Trent -- which is 16th century. The Church Of England followed shortly thereafter with it's own version of the (King James) Bible.
For being considered the most influential person in all of history, it is strange that of the 28 first century historians who existed at the time of Jesus, none of them mention Jesus at all...
The very first historian to supposedly mention Jesus at all was Josephus Flavianus, but if you read Josephus for yourself, you will find that he doesn't talk about Jesus at all, he just merely mentions a "Christus" in passing while talking about his brother. That hardly counts as much of a influence on history. The only influence came from the Popes, not Jesus.
Everybody makes mistakes, so what's wrong if the Bible has a few contradictions here or there? The problem is that the Bible is supposed to represent the ultimate word on reality, and a blatant contradiction implies a conflict with the facts of reality. Here is a very small listing of some of the contradictions, mistakes, and inconsistencies that can be found in the Bible that give much doubt and uncertainty to any claim that the Bible represents the ultimate word on reality...
Christians have tried in vain for thousands of years, to suppress reason and science because reason and science are the enemies of religion. They persecuted Copernicus and Galileo and wound up with egg on their face. They tried to suppress the use of the lightning rod because they were "interfering" with God's means of enacting judgement. But when the neighboring brothel (the one with the lightning-rods installed) was untouched while the tallest structure in the town, the Cross at the top of the church, was being "struck down by God" every other thunderstorm that passed through, they quickly changed their minds -- God approved lightning rods afterall!
The Bible is an ancient man-made document that reflects the ancient, and therefore usually incorrect and backwards science of its day, so it shouldn't surprise us to see all the places in the Bible where science most definitely disagrees with the word of God, places like...
Christians have deluded themselves into believing that they have a moralistic religion with rules of what absolute right or wrong is. How can they arrogantly claim to have all the answers for mankind when they can't even get their own doctrines straight like their flip-flop on past issues of slavery, women's rights, what constitutes proper dress, predestination, when the rapture will occur, methods of worship, and so on and so forth? Then there is the problem of doctrines such as...
The Bible tells us taking the life of another human is wrong, yet turns around and has Samuel go out and kill every man, pregnant woman, child, baby, and even animal in the so-called Promise Land. Where I come from, that would be called mass-murder, religious cleansing, ethnic cleansing, racial cleansing, and animal cruelty. I guess if Samuel had done this of his own free will, it would be considered evil, but since God told Samuel to do it, it must be "righteous".
So this brings up the question, is God just as unrighteous as man then? I think about all the mass murders and religious cleansings God conducted in the OT. There was (in addition to 1 Samuel 15:2-3) Hosea 9:11-16, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Exodus 12:29-30, Leviticus 26:21-22, Isaiah 13:15-18, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, and so on and so forth. Then there are all the many and varied reasons for us to kill other people in the name of God. We are to kill anyone working on the Sabbath, gays, infidels, false prophets, women who are not virgins on their wedding night, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, anyone who curses their parents, fortunetellers, witches, and so on and so forth. So "thou shalt not kill" is one of the Ten Commandments, yet there are so many exceptions to the rule in the Bible for killing other people, God has made killing one another the rule instead of the exception to the rule. The Bible has turned a reasonable moral principle into a joke instead of something to be taken seriously.
Jesus said, "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven". On Aug 29th of 2005, millions of Christians around the USA prayed in Jesus' name, in agreement together, that New Orleans would be spared. Their prayers failed. They failed when millions of Christians prayed in agreement together in Jesus' name that President Kennedy's life be spared right after he was shot. They failed when millions of Christians prayed in agreement together that Pope John Paul's life be spared. Which means Jesus lied and prayer doesn't work.
But what if there are conditions on all our prayers, and all those Christians embarrassed themselves in front of God and everybody by not praying within God's will? Afterall, even Jesus capitulated to his fate in the Garden of Gethsemane by saying, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt". The question then is, how in the world can one read the mind of God and know what is His will? You can't, so clearly "the will of God" is whatever happens, whether you pray for it or not. You want to save New Orleans from destruction? Pray that it is saved. If New Orleans is saved then it was God's will and your prayer had nothing to do with it. If New Orleans is destroyed then it was God's will and your prayer had nothing to do with it. You want to see New Orleans destroyed? Pray that it is destroyed. If New Orleans is destroyed then it was God's will and your prayer had nothing to do with it. If New Orleans is saved then it was God's will and your prayer had nothing to do with it. Praying to God becomes pointless and powerless, when obviously the answer to every prayer will always be silence, neither yes or no, because God won't answer your prayers and in the end He will do whatever He wills, not what you will.
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse"John the Baptist did not "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers", and the Earth was never smited with a curse...or was it?(Mal 4:5,6)
There are no testimonies and never will be any testimonies about how, "I didn't decide to accept Christ as my savior until I heard about the Trinity doctrine. That was when I knew then and there that this was the religion for me". Nor will you ever hear any testimonies about how, "I was weak in faith and backsliding like crazy, but then my faith was turned around and uplifted when I heard about the Trinity. The Trinity has made me a new man in Christ". You know why you will never hear those kinds of testimonies about the Trinity? Because the Trinity does not lead people to salvation or build up their faith. All the Trinity doctrine does is lead to endless debating about if the Trinity actually can be found within certain randomly selected Bible verses or not -- something that is clearly condemned in the Bible (Heb 10:24,25). If the Trinity was such an important doctrine as they pretend it to be, you would think that God would have had devoted a chapter or two about it in the Bible, like he did for love or salvation, or at least have Jesus give a sermon on it. The Trinity concept isn't supported by the Bible and therefore requires explanation by "qualified" individuals you must "trust" to tell you the truth, and since there are so many "qualified" individuals who contradict each other, the whole Trinity mess is always open to confusion...hmm, I wonder who the author of confusion is supposed to be?
If Jesus was God, then God ceased to exist when Jesus became a man. Who was left to raise Jesus from the dead then? Men cannot resurrect themselves from the dead, last time I looked. Or maybe Jesus wasn't really the whole of God, he was just a part of God, so that when Jesus became a man, the other parts of God stayed in Heaven to manipulate Jesus like a puppet on a string. That doesn't say much for freewill choice when you are just a sock puppet. Still others have tried to describe each member of the Trinity as God wearing different hats and appearing as a different person. Just because a person wears different hats does not make them appear to be a different person everytime they switch hats. Furthermore, a person with a multiple personality disorder like that, is never described as a three-in-one but only as a one-with-three. Finally, another explanation I have heard is that Jesus is not God but has the same exact properties that God has. Yet if we saw Jesus and God sitting side by side, would they have the same exact properties or would Jesus have something that God didn't have, just so we could tell them apart? If Jesus has something that God doesn't have (how about the name of Jesus?), then that means they are no longer equal or that Jesus is really not all that much Godlike afterall. That is what we call a contradiction of terms. Furthermore, this implies that there aren't three beings anymore, but there are four: Jesus, the Father, the Holy Ghost, and the God thingy. "Two is company but three is a crowd", but in this case three is a committee.
In the beginning, how many languages were spoken in Heaven and Earth? The answer is one because the only reason for establishing multiple languages was to create confusion. Read about the tower of Babel and see what I mean. So if someone who speaks in tongues claims to be speaking in an "unknown language" or "a language of angels" and not men, since all the angels speak one language (to avoid confusion in Heaven) and it was the same language that Adam spoke (to avoid confusion between God, the angels, and Adam in the beginning), therefore it would have to be a language that is still spoken somewhere here on Earth (Hebrew?). We need to remember these three things about tongues...
So whatever is said during the "tongues" part but before the "interpretation" part, it had better convey something to the unbeliever that is "of miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God's". Speaking in gibberish as they do, is not by any stretch of the imagination, a "miracle".
God is allowing Satan to rule the world for the time being, but in the meantime, God is giving His collaboration, cooperation, and assistance to keep Satan in business. How can you trust a person who would give their collaboration, cooperation, and assistance to your enemies? Which is more evil: the one who commits the crime or the one who aids and abets a criminal in committing a crime? God has allowed evil to exist for thousands and thousands of years, so clearly God does not believe in damage control or nipping things in the bud.
If we don't choose to believe God is unbelievably kind and loving, God will instead become unbelievably wrathful. A wrathful person cannot simultaneously be called kind and loving. They are incompatible traits. God then decides that the vast majority of humankind will go to Hell because of the evil He gave permission to exist in the first place. That means billions and billions of people will go to Hell. Why wouldn't a "loving God" cut His losses to a minimum and stop evil at the point that only one thousand or even one million people would go to Hell, instead of the current billions and billions? Why doesn't God doesn't turn the other cheek to His enemies, instead of deep frying them in Jesus' version of Hitler's Ovens, if they don't tell God what a swell person He is? I would never wish Hell on anyone and I especially would not support any man, woman, or religion that preached what appears to be the ultimate religious/racial cleansing act ever (sadistically) conceived.
So why doesn't the supreme creator of the universe and the ultimate psychologist believe in rehabilitation? It is impossible for there to not be at least one person in Hell who is sorry for the life they had lived that put them there in Hell, so what justification would there be to still leave them there? If God doesn't believe in rehabilitation, why should we?
II Peter 3:9 says, "...he [God] is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance [that leads to salvation]". Yet this contrasts sharply with the statement that Jesus made concerning Capernum in Matt 11:23, "And you, Capernaum, will you perhaps be exalted to heaven? Down to Hades you will come; because if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until this very day". This implies that God was not patient with Sodom but he desired to destroy Sodom, because if God had simply performed the powerful works that took place in Capernum, Sodom would have remained until this very day, and there would be that many more people that would have attained the repentance that leads to salvation.
So if God's love isn't enough to convince non-believers to be saved now, how will the threat of a Hell be the final clincher to convince them that God is real and they must be saved? It is like a man standing over there, holding a gun to your head and saying, "Vow to always respect and admire me and I will invite you into my mansion to live with me the rest of your life or refuse and I will blow your brains out right here. So which will it be punk? Go ahead...make my day!"? How can you respect or trust a person like that?
Paul talks about how God has made some "vessels" fit for destruction and others not, but why would God make people fit for Hell? My mother and my father conceived and raised me. Does that make them good parents or bad parents? That depends on how they treated me, doesn't it? Just because they are my parents does not mean they deserve respect or admiration, for example, maybe they were child abusers. God clearly does not have the right to do what He likes with what He owns or has created. There are higher principles at work here. For example, God has no right to commit child abuse. Just as man has the ability to create things then use those creations for good or evil, so does God. After any God has created something, He should turn around and take responsibility for taking proper care of that creation. God apparently isn't fit to be a Father.
Some people claim that without Hell, there is no reason for anyone to be good. These people are telling us that if they didn't believe in Hell, they would have no reason to not be a murderer or a child molester or a thief or a rapist. Is this the "real" them then? I know God does not exist, yet I have no desire to become a murderer or a child molester because that is not what I am. I obviously must have a built-in moral compass that these Christians do not have. If these people were to find out today that God really doesn't exist, there would be nothing to stop them from becoming murderers or child molesters or thieves or rapists. Yet if I were to find out today that God really does exist, I wouldn't change a thing about my behavior because I already do what is good by my own free will. I don't need threats for me to act good because righteousness is it's own reward and unrighteousness is it's own punishment.
In the end, God will create a new Heaven and a new Earth...but wait! What about Hell? Is God going to make a new Hell too, or is the old Hell good enough as it is? Heaven and Earth won't be all that new if the old Hell is still hanging around in them.
The problem with salvation is the same exact problem with Hell. If we don't choose to believe God is unbelievably kind and loving, God will instead become unbelievably wrathful and send us to Hell. Salvation therefore is the act of God saving us from Himself. Why can't God unconditionally forgive and forget, without anyone having to ask Him, and instead of having a temper tantrum where He tries to get even by sending almost everybody to Hell? "The wages of sin is death", not Hell, so why does the Bible tells us that God, "desire[s] mercy, not sacrifice"? Obviously because mercy doesn't work for God, and when mercy didn't work God resorted to sacrifice, and when sacrifice didn't work, God gave up and resorted to Hell. If the main purpose of Jesus coming to die on earth was to save sinners from Hell, then Jesus failed, since the Bible says the vast majority of humankind will go to Hell.
Even if you are a believer, salvation doesn't work out all that well either. If salvation depended entirely just on accepting it, then St James would not have been inspired to write, "You see that A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE." (James 2:24). A true gift, by definition, is free, with no strings attached. Under the New Testament law, there are more rules, guidelines, obligations, and responsibilities of behavior than there ever were under the Old Testament law, so much so that St Paul likens salvation to running a race: "...RUN in such a way THAT YOU MAY ATTAIN IT... LEST POSSIBLY, after I have preached to others, I MYSELF SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED." (I Cor 9:24-27). Running a race is hard work. If you don't have the endurance to finish it, you may find yourself quitting, and thereby losing the race. Paul says that you may also run the race in such a way that you might find yourself disqualified (such as cheating by taking a shortcut). Clearly "once saved always saved" is a false doctrine and salvation "comes with strings attached".
The two most important events in all of Christianity would have to be Jesus' crucifixion and his resurrection. These two events are at the heart and core of Christianity. But listen to this: Jesus said, "...for just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the belly of the earth three days and three nights." (Matt 12:40) and "And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again"(Mar 8:31). So how much time elapsed between the time Jesus died and the time Jesus rose?
Remember the account in the Bible of this? First they have the Lord's Supper and Judas' betrayal. That would be between 6PM Thursday and 12 midnight Friday. Jesus is on trial by 6AM Friday (cock crowing). John lists the time of Jesus' death as late Friday afternoon, after 3PM. The Jews don't want dead bodies hanging around for the weekly sabbaton (which starts Friday at 6PM), so they have the body taken down and thrown in a makeshift grave. After 6PM (the "the next day" for Jews) the Jews have the grave secured by guards for three days. Sunday before 6AM, Jesus is gone. The problem with this is that is only two nights and one full day. THIS IS A PROPHECY THAT DID NOT COME TRUE THEN! Jesus should have risen on Monday, not Sunday, or that he should have died on Thursday, not Friday.
Jesus died on Friday (sabbaton), the day before Saturday and since the Friday Jesus died on was also a Passover feast, it was the day before the Passover Sabbath (prosabbaton). So what day did the Passover Sabbath fall on? Saturday, the weekly sabbath. So this was no ordinary weekly sabbath and it was no ordinary Passover Sabbath. It was a super double whammy Sabbath because it was two Sabbaths on the same day. John calls it a "high day". Notice how John calls it a high day and not high days.
One of the first things that a street evangelist or preacher has to convince you of, is that you are a sinner. If they can convince you that sin exists, then the logical conclusion is that you must be a sinner...and if you are a sinner you need forgiveness and forgiveness only comes from accepting Jesus.
In order to convince you of your sin, they will cite the ten commandments: Thou shalt not steal, lie, commit adultery, etc. In reality, there are way more than ten commandments listed throughout Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34:12-26, and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Of the most often cited ten commandments, the first four commandments are standing orders to have no other religion other than one that worships Yahweh (Jehovah). Funny how they *never* mention those first four commandments when trying to convince you of your allegedly sinful nature! It's like yeah, I'm "guilty" of not belonging to your religion, but isn't it kind of bigoted and self-serving for a religion to define as a "sinner" anyone who isn't a member of their religion? Of course it is!
What about the other commandments, for example, thou shalt not lie? They will ask you if you have ever told a lie, and if you ever have told just one lie, what does that make you? A liar? Well have you ever told the truth? What does that make you then? A liar is someone who practices telling lies whereas an honest person is someone who practices telling the truth. One lie does not make you a liar anymore than running from one fight makes you a coward -- unless you do it everytime you face a fight. And the Bible does not say that lying is wrong, it says bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong. I have never beared false witness against my neighbor. And since when is lying always wrong? What if you were a German living during Hitler's reign and I was a Jew living under your protection, and all of a sudden the police come knocking on your door, asking if you were harbouring any Jews? Would telling a lie be a good thing or a bad thing under those circumstances?
What about using God's name in vain? That would be kind of impossible, seeing as no one knows exactly what God's name is. "God" is not a name, it is a title, like President.
How about thou shalt not commit adultery or thou shalt not kill/murder? Most people will say no they haven't done either, so the street evangelist or preacher will shift gears and say Jesus said if you even look upon another woman with lust, you have committed adultery in your heart or if you have been angry with your brother you have committed murder in your heart. There are two problems with this. One, since I am not a Christian, no one is my brother and I cannot hate what I do not have. Now if Jesus had said if you have been angry with your neighbor, that would have been a different story. Two, Jesus did not say that lust was adultery. Obviously Jesus was speaking to married couples lusting after other partners, or single people lusting after married people because that is the only time you can commit adultery. Clearly without lust, no one ever get married and St Paul would not have been inspired to instruct followers to remain single if they could, but if they were unable to control their non-sinful lusting, it would be better if they got married. Furthermore, wasn't the purpose of this whole routine to show how Old Testament Law can convince me that I'm a sinner, but here you are, trying to amend a few Old Testament commandments with New? If the Law isn't enough to convict me, as the Bible claims the Law can do, then it isn't true .
Ask your preacher friend if they keep the Sabbath (Saturday) holy like the ten commandments told them to. Oh, it doesn't apply to them because it was just a ceremonial law, not a moral law? So they just negate and admend the commandments to suit their lifestyle; they've taken the ten commandments and whittled it down to just nine. But why stop there? If they can subtract one commandment from God's word what's to stop them from eliminating them all, when it suits their purposes?
As you can see, you can pick their argument apart into little pieces with nothing left for them to hold onto. Of course, by that point, they would have given up on you and hope and pray that "the Spirit would convict you of your sinfulness". But the point is that you would have planted seeds of doubt into their minds of the credibility of their religion. Mind you, don't expect an immediate renouncement of their religion, just a slow undermining of their blind, stupid faith.
A formerly difficult question I have been faced with from Christians before is, "What if I'm right and you are wrong? You will suffer in Hell while I will live in ecstasy in Heaven. Right? But what if you are right and I am wrong? Then we will both simply die and be done with it. But why take the chance that you could be wrong?" This is what I call the "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. But what if both of us are wrong and there is yet a third belief that will condemn the both of us forever for not believing in it? Why take the chance that we could both be wrong?
God loves me.
He loves me not.
He loves me.
He loves me not.
He loves me.
He loves me not.
Etc...
For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him...is gullible enough to believe in just about damn near anything!
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever refuses to believeth in him, God will have to hunt them down and kill them and their family.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son unimaginable supernatural powers, and that whosoever believeth in him, can have those very same unimaginable supernatural powers too!
For God so loved this pagan world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life...and if that doesn't work we have a pay-as-you-go plan with over 2000 statues, icons, and images standing-by to take down your prayers and send them off to God for you
For Jehovah so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten WatchTower organization, that whosoever believeth in it will not be prematurely judged unworthy of eternal life by it.
For God so loved the Jews. Period.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever...[we interrupt this message to bring you this special revelation from Joseph Smith: "While you were busy worshipping Jesus during this message, Jesus sneaked out on us and had "other sheep" folks! No really!"]...believeth in him will not perish...[we interrupt this message to bring you this special revelation from Joseph Smith: "God has decided to add a few amendments to his gospel message as originally given. Let's start by saying that in the beginning, God made them male...and very many females."]...but have everlasting...[we interrupt this message...well, you get the point!]
One day God said
This is what I will do
I'll send down my son
I'll send him to you
To clear up this humpity
Bumpity hulabaloo
His name will be Christ
And he'll never wear shoes
And his pals will all call
Him the King of the Jews
He didn't come in a plane
He didn't come in a jeep
He didn't come in the pouch
Of a high jumping vo veep
He rode on the back of a black sasatoo
Which is the blackiest creature
You ever could view
He rode to Jerusalem
Home of the grumpity Jews
Where false prophets are worshipped
Some even in two's
There was Murrary Von Mer
And Genghis Vo Vooze
The one you could worship
By taking a snooze
Christ spoke from a mound
Which is a pile of ground
And people gathered around
Without making a sound
And thus he spake
Sin in socks
Socks full of sin
How do we quiet this
Jehovady din
Do unto others as
They do unto you
That includes you
Young Timothy Foo
One pharisee said to another he knew
What do we do with this upitty jew
We can wash him in wine
And make him all clean
And into Sam Zittle's
Crucifixion Machine
Twirl the gawhril
And release the gavlease
And in go the nails
As fast as you please
And it is said that he
Said as he bled:
Forgive them Father
For they know not what they do
For they walk through this life
In toe crampity shoes.
Do you?
Amen
(THE KIDS IN THE HALL, by Author unknown)
For God so loved the world that He will send you to Hell if you don't believe He so loved the world.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"Since the wise man knows himself to be a fool, the wise man will say in his heart, 'There is no God'.(AS YOU LIKE IT, by Shakespeare)
WAR PRAYER FOR REICH
Catholic Bishops at Fulda Ask Blessing and Victory
The conference of German Catholic Bishops assembled in Fulda has recommended the introduction of a special war prayer which is to be read at the beginning and end of all divine services. This prayer implores Providence to bless German arms with victory and grant protection to the lives and health of all soldiers. The Bishops further instructed Catholic clergy to keep and remember in a special Sunday sermon at least once a month to German soldiers on land, on sea, and in the air
In the boldest and most cynical manner...Papen [Hitler] proceeded to tell me that...he intended to use his reputation as a good Catholic to gain influence with Austrians like Cardinal Innitzer. (The Gathering Storm by Winston Churchill)
| 000 | Mt 1:1-17 | 00Lk 3:23-38 | Ruth Ge 10:24 Ge 11:12 00I Ch 1:18,24 | 000 |
| 01 | God | God (Allah) | 01 | |
| 02 | Adam | Adam | 02 | |
| 03 | Seth | Seth | 03 | |
| 04 | Enosh | Enosh | 04 | |
| 05 | Cainan | Kenan | 05 | |
| 06 | Mahalaleel | Mahalaleel | 06 | |
| 07 | Jared | |||