Rasta Nicks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

No news is good news!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16

Author Topic: The Bible [please reason]  (Read 30212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rastafari

  • Full User
  • ***
  • Karma: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #75 on: July 17, 2010, 12:29:01 PM »

you said parts of the bible do not portray his majesty, the whole includes the parts, so if parts do not portray his majesty then the whole cannot either.
Logged
To see your hurt would be their greatest ambition

prophet777

  • Senior User
  • ****
  • Karma: 17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #76 on: July 17, 2010, 01:15:19 PM »

Here are more Contradictions to be found :

JN 1:1, 10:30  Jesus and God are one.
JN 14:28 God is greater than Jesus.

JN 1:1 Jesus was God incarnate.
AC 2:22 Jesus was a man approved by God.

JN 3:17, 8:15, 12:47 Jesus does not judge.
JN 5:22, 5:27-30, 9:39, AC 10:42, 2CO 5:10 Jesus does judge.

JN 5:22 God does not judge.
RO 2:2-5, 3:19, 2TH 1:5, 1PE 1:17 God does judge.

JN 5:31 Jesus says that if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true.
JN 8:14 Jesus says that even if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true.

JN 5:38-47 Men have a choice as to whether or not to receive Jesus.
JN 6:44 No one can come to Jesus unless he is drawn by the Father.

AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.
RO 9:11-13 God hated Esau and loved Jacob even before their birth.

AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.
RO 9:18 God has mercy on whoever he chooses, etc.

AC 16:6 The Holy Spirit forbids preaching in Asia.
AC 19:8-10 Paul preaches in Asia anyway.

 Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

Jesus descended from which son of David?
(a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
(b) Nathan(Luke3:31)

Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
(a)  Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
(b)  No(John 1:19-21)

Would Jesus inherit David’s throne?
(a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
(b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David’s throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

What did Jesus say about Peter’s denial?
(a)   “The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38).
(b)  “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:30) . When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.

Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven?
(a)   No (John 3:13)
(b)  Yes. “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11)
The same is with Enoch.

Who killed Goliath?
(a)   David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)
(b)   Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)

This is really some confused book......LOL.

P7
Logged
ME NAH COM' FE BOW - ME COM' FE CONQUER !!

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #77 on: July 17, 2010, 01:44:41 PM »

the whole includes the parts, so if parts do not portray his majesty then the whole cannot either

returning to the example of the italians invading ethiopia - they were winning for a while. this however didn't prevent them from losing in the end. it is true that they were winning for a while yet the whole say something else.
Logged

prophet777

  • Senior User
  • ****
  • Karma: 17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #78 on: July 17, 2010, 02:26:45 PM »

Now let us take a further look at this book :

The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years after Jesus.  So unless the Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering it as the True Living Word of GOD.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible!  According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was.  This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing.  These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.

There is a serious forgery about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't!  Let us look at Luke 24:44-48 :

Luke 24

44  He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45  Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46  He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
47  and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48  You are witnesses of these things.

Luke 24:44-48 says that it is written in the Law of Moses (i.e., the Torah) that Jesus will die and resurrect on the third day.  Where in the entire Old Testament (not just in the 5 books of Moses that make up the Law of Moses or the Torah) do you have that?!   Show me one Old Testament verse that prophesized about Jesus' third day resurrection?

The Gospel of John :

These verses were obviously written by mysterious men and not by any of Jesus' original disciples.  Therefore, it is blasphemy to consider such verses as Divine and to try to prove Jesus is the Creator of the Universe through them.  The lie of trinity was born between the years of 150 to 300.  It is quite possible and highly probable that some church wrote the so-called "Gospel of John" from excerpts that they found.   Notice that there are 24,000 "letters" or papers found that were not included in today's New Testament, which means that the excerpts that were used for writing the "Gospel of John" and all of the other books and gospels of the NT are highly doubtful and contain no proof what so ever that they were written by any of Jesus' original disciples.  The Gospel of John was written about John but not by the original "Saint John".  

The Book Of Revelation :

"The author of the book calls himself John, who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony.  Although he never claims to be John the apostle, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Terullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus.  This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom.  Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same persons responsible for the fourth gospel.

"Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:8).....In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John.  He suggested that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears elsewhere in ancient writings.  Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view.

Again, we don't know who wrote the Book of Revelation.  It is certainly highly doubtful that it was written by Apostle John.  The Theologians and Historians of the NIV Bible seem to agree with the invalidity of this book from the above quote.  So are you now going to consider the other John's words as the Words and Inspirations of GOD Almighty?

As we see, the style of writing in the book of Revelation is different from the books that are believed to be from John which are the Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John.   The book of Revelation's style seems to be closer to John the Presbyter's writings.   This man is known in ancient writings.  There are also many Christian theologians today that hold the same view about the falsety of the book of Revelation.

Isn't this sufficient enough to prove that the book is doubtful?

Notice that in the sections of "Gospel of John" and "Gospels of 1, 2 & 3  John" above, the author did not identify himself and it was ASSUMED without actual proofs that it was Saint John who wrote them.  Notice how they said that if he were to identify himself, then it would be hard for them to explain it.

Now, notice the author in the Book of Revelation does identify himself as John, but he has a complete different language and style of writing from the other books, which created much uncertainty about its validity in the Church.

The Bible Declares:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (2 Samuel 22:31)

"And the words of the LORD are flawless...." (Psalm 12:6)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (Psalm 18:30)

"Every word of God is flawless...." (Proverbs 30:5)

LOL.

These are just some things gfor you all to consider. There are many many more but, I will post them in due time.

P7
Posted on: July 17, 2010, 02:46:37 PM
Here is more. I found this on the Net :

Who were the authors of the Bible?  Were they really the original Prophets and Desciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses  . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

Let us have a slightly more detailed look at only one book of the New Testament, that of 'Hebrews':

"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship."

From the introduction to the King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition

and one book of the Old Testament:

"In tradition, [David] is credited with writing 73 of the Psalms; most scholars, however, consider this claim questionable."

Encarta Encyclopedia, under "David"

Is this how we define "inspired by God"?

I asked a reverand of the local church in my neighboorhod, on what gospel most often quoted and used, he quickly answered, the Gospel of St. John!

Let us examine the Contextual Problems of the Gospel of John - Highly Recommended!

 

Is the Bible 100% faultless and untampered with by the Church?

Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, therefore, let us ask the Christian scholars themselves:

"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors"

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633

"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these."

Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643

Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity and one of the Church's foremost scholars of the Bible was himself driven to admit that:

"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written"

Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117

After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:

"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference"

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is accurate."

Throughout this book you will find countless other similar quotations from some of Christendom's leading scholars. Let us suffice with these for now.

P7
Posted on: July 17, 2010, 02:55:39 PM
So, where did these discarded verses come from in the first place?

St. Paul was answerable for having made during his lifetime wholesale changes to the religion of Jesus . Changes which Jesus  himself never authorized to anyone during his lifetime. After his departure the pagan gentiles who accepted Paul's simplified version of "Christianity" continued to adapt it and to introduce into it many of the doctrines of paganism which they had already been practicing for so may centuries. Among these doctrines was the concept of the "trinity" which was a very widely practiced and accepted concept in the pagan beliefs of the surrounding nations of Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, and Hindus many centuries before they were finally officially defined and "recognized" in the fourth century C.E. After this doctrine received the official support of the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, a massive campaign of death and torture was launched against all Christians who refused to renounce the teachings of the apostles in favor of the modified and expanded Pauline doctrines. All but the Gospels acceptable to the Pauline faith were then systematically destroyed or re-written. Rev. Charles Anderson Scott has the following to say:

"It is highly probable that not one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was in existence in the form which we have it, prior to the death of Paul. And were the documents to be taken in strict order of chronology, the Pauline Epistles would come before the synoptic Gospels."

History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, p.338

This statement is further confirmed by Prof. Brandon:

"The earliest Christian writings that have been preserved for us are the letters of the apostle Paul"

"Religions in Ancient History," S.G.F. Brandon, p. 228.

In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says:

"As the brethren desired me to write epistles(letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (changes), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these."

The Noble Qur'an (the Muslims' Holy Scripture) confirms this with the words:

"Then woe to those who write the book (of Allah/God) with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah', to traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby  (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"

Victor Tununensis, a sixth century African Bishop related in his Chronicle (566 AD) that when Messala was consul at Costantinople (506 AD), he "censored and corrected" the Gentile Gospels written by persons considered illiterate by the Emperor Anastasius. The implication was that they were altered to conform to sixth century Christianity which differed from the Christianity of previous centuries (The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New Testament, by M. A. Yusseff, p. 81)

These "corrections" were by no means confined to the first centuries after Christ. Sir Higgins says:

"It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland's 'Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury', is the following passage: 'Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam."

History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge, Higgins p.318

In other words, the Christian scriptures were re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and even the writings of the early church fathers were "corrected" so that the changes would not be discovered. Sir Higgins goes on to say:

"The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: 'Impartiality exacts from me the confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels'."

The author then goes on to demonstrate how a massive effort was undertaken in Costantinople, Rome, Canterbury, and the Christian world in general in order to "correct" the Gospels and destroy all manuscripts before this period.

Theodore Zahan, illustrated the bitter conflicts within the established churches in Articles of the Apostolic Creed. He points out that the Roman Catholics accuse the Greek Orthodox Church of remodeling the text of the holy scriptures by additions and omissions with both good as well as evil intentions. The Greek Orthodox, on the other hand, accuse the Roman Catholics of straying in many places very far away from the original text. In spite of their differences, they both join forces to condemn the non-conformist Christians of deviating from "the true way" and condemn them as heretics. The "heretics" in turn condemn the Catholics for having "recoined the truth like forgers." The author concludes "Do not facts support these accusations?"

"And from those who said: "We are Christians," We took their covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture. Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides them to a straight path. They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then has the least power against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom He will, and punishes [for their sins] whom He will. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the return [of all]. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to make things plain after a break in [the series of] the messengers, lest you should say: There came not unto us a messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of cheer and a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all things.  (The Noble Quran, 5:14-19)"

St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that

"there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them."

Sir Higgins admits:

"It is not unfair to suppose that in these withheld truths we have part of the modern Christian mysteries, and I think it will hardly be denied that the church, whose highest authorities held such doctrines, would not scruple to retouch the sacred writings" (The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New Testament, M. A. Yusseff, p.83)

Even the epistles attributed to Paul were not written by him. After years of research, Catholics and Protestants alike agree that of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul only seven are genuinely his. They are: Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians.

P7
Posted on: July 17, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
SIMILAR TRUE Istories Compared with the Mythical/Lie-bical Jesus :

Attis:

The pagan god Attis was the son of the virgin Nana. He was the "savior" and "only begotten son." His blood was believed to have renewed the fertility of the earth. As such, he was a symbol of immortality. He was believed to have died on March 24th and been resurrected shortly thereafter. Sacramental meals and baptism of blood were features of his church.

Adonis or Tammuz:

He was born of a virgin and was the "savior" of Syria. He died in redemption for mankind and was later resurrected in the spring.

Dionysus or Bacchus:

He was the "only begotten son" of Jupiter, the king of the gods of the Romans and the lord of life and death (For the Greeks, his father was the almighty Zeus). He was named the god of wine and revelry. Dionysus died at the hands of the Titans, who tore him apart, roasted the pieces, and began to eat them. At that point Zeus intervened, saved some of the pieces, and had Apollo bury them at Delphi. There, it was believed, Dionysus arose from the dead He said to mankind "It is I who guide you; it is I who protect you, and who save you; I am Alpha and Omega." He was slain for redeeming humanity and was called "the slain one," "the sin bearer," and "the redeemer." In celebrating his festival, his worshippers would observe the sparagmos: the tearing apart of a live animal, the eating of its flesh, and the drinking of its blood; participants believed they were in fact partaking of the god's body and blood. Plays were also staged at these festivals. Wine had a central place at his festivals. Does any of this sound familiar?

Bel or Baal:

He was the sun god of Babylon. The story of his life and his passion play bears a tremendous resemblance to that given to Jesus  in our current Gospels. Called the lord of the universe, he was killed by monsters but restored to life. His death and resurrection were celebrated annually as a part of Canaanite fertility rituals.

Osiris:

He was the Egyptian's god of the dead and the underworld, born of the "virgin of the world" on the 29th of December. He preached gentleness and peace. Wine and corn were both his discoveries. He was betrayed by Typhen, slain and dismembered. He remained in hell for two or three days and three nights. He would be the judge of mankind in a future life.

Mithras or Mithra

He was the sun god of the Persians and the son of a virgin. He was born on the 25th of December. Christmas and Easter were two of the most important festivals of his church. His worshipers observed baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist supper at which time they would partake of their "god" in the form of bread and wine.

Krishna:

The Indian god Krishna too bears a tremendous resemblance to Jesus  in the story of his mission and his divinity. He was the incarnation of the Indian's supreme god Vishnu (the preserver and protector of the world) in the womb of Devaki. The Hindoo prophet Bala predicted that a divine Savior would "become incarnate in the house of Yadu, and issue forth to mortal birth from the womb of Devaci (a Holy Virgin), and relieve the oppressed earth of its load of sin and sorrow." Upon Krishna's birth, a great chorus of angles proclaimed "In the delivery of this favored woman, nature shall have cause to exalt." His birth was indicated by a star in heaven. Although of royal blood, he was born in a cave. He was presented with gifts of sandalwood and perfumes. His foster father was told to flee and hide him lest king Kansa might take his life. King Kansa had ordered all male infants born on that night to be slain. One of his first miracles was the healing of a leper. He was later slain and this resulted in an eclipse of the sun and a black circle forming around the moon. Spirits were seen on all sides and he descended into hell, rose again, and ascended into heaven with many people being witnesses to his bodily accent. He will have a "second coming" in the future which his followers continue await. There are countless other similarities with what is known today as "Christianity" even though his religion was well establish centuries before the birth of Jesus . The accounts of Krishna's childhood agree quite closely with the apocryphal accounts of Jesus' childhood. In the ancient epic poems, Krishna is simply regarded as a great hero, it was not until about the 4th century BC that he was elevated to the position of a god.

Buddha:

Both books mentioned above have compiled a very detailed comparison of the legends of both Jesus  and Buddha. The similarities are astounding. T.W. Doane has gone so far as to dedicate an entire chapter to this comparison, including a 48 point side-by-side narration from the time of their birth till the end of their lives on earth. Their conception, birth, mission, miracles, temptation, preaching, worship, prophesies, death, ascension, divinity, judgment of mankind, and many other matters are almost word-for-word exact copies of one another. Dr. Ansari records in his book the following words of the eminent Christian scholar S. M. Melamed:

"Yet the fact remains that Buddhist canons were already known to the Western world before the coming of Jesus. Today hardly any Indologist of note denies the organic connection between the two redemptive religions. So close is the connection between them that even the details of the miracles recorded between Buddhism and Christianity are the same. Of Buddha, too, it was told that he fed five hundred men with one loaf of bread, that he cured lepers and caused the blind to see."

As far back as 1884, a German historian of religion by the name of Rudolph Seydel published a very detailed study demonstrating that all of the tales, miracles, similes, and proverbs of the Christian Bible have their counterparts in the much more ancient Buddhastic gospel.

The author of "Bible Myths" observes that even though Buddha has been elevated today to the position of God, still, Mr. Doane observes that

"There is no reason to believe that he ever arrogated to himself any higher authority than that of a teacher of religion, but as in modern factions, there were readily found among his followers those who carried his peculiar tenets much further than their founder. These, not content with lauding during his life-time the noble deeds of their teacher, exalted him, within a quarter of a century after his death to a place among their deities - worshipping as a god one they had known only as a simple hearted, earnest, truth-seeking philanthropist."

Once again, this conforms exactly to the claim of the Qur'an that God was selecting prophets from every nation on earth (not just the Jews) and sending them to their people (and only to their people) to return them to the true worship of God alone, and that after their departure, their followers would not be content with themselves until they had managed to totally corrupt what their prophet had come to preach to them and even to go so far as to make this prophet himself the object of their pagan worship (see the Qur'an, Fatir (35):24).

Does this mean that Buddha was a true prophet of God? Only God Almighty Himself knows the answer to that question. However, it does appear that there at least exists the possibility that he might have been one of those many thousands of prophets and that his message may have started out as a true message of God which was later changed by mankind.

Yeah man..so now we see where this story of Jesus was adapted/stolen from.......

P7
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 02:30:31 PM by prophet777 »
Logged
ME NAH COM' FE BOW - ME COM' FE CONQUER !!

rastafari

  • Full User
  • ***
  • Karma: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #79 on: July 17, 2010, 05:34:05 PM »

returning to the example of the italians invading ethiopia - they were winning for a while. this however didn't prevent them from losing in the end. it is true that they were winning for a while yet the whole say something else.
  Wrong. This is the relativist position of someone who knows nothing about G-d. Whatever "winning" YOU think the Italians did in Ethiopia was obviously just an element of their failure because as we know they failed and thus every part of their endeavor is just a part of that failure.
Logged
To see your hurt would be their greatest ambition

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #80 on: July 17, 2010, 06:13:43 PM »

yes i, the failure that invaded ethiopia and killed ethiopians was not a part of the success.
Logged

rastafari

  • Full User
  • ***
  • Karma: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #81 on: July 17, 2010, 06:26:34 PM »

And so it is with whatever passages of the bible you think are wrong when you see the right that it is.
Logged
To see your hurt would be their greatest ambition

prophet777

  • Senior User
  • ****
  • Karma: 17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #82 on: July 17, 2010, 06:58:47 PM »

Let us take a look at the mythical Jeez-us of the Lie-bel and compare points of this stolen story to points of the real Istory:

The Jesus Myth
Pre-Jesus stories that made up the Jesus Myth :

WHO WAS HE?

HE WAS...BUDDHA (563 B.C.) :
    * He was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven.
    * He was of royal descent.
    * He crushed a serpent's head.
    * He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
    * He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
    * He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
    * He was transfigured on a mount.
    * He was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
    * He ascended to "heaven."

HE WAS... the Ancient Egyptian God HORUS (prior to 3100 B.C.):
    * He contributed the name of Jesus Christ. He and his once-and-future Father, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one").
    * He was born of the virgin Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
    * He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old. He was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
    * He had 12 disciples.
    * He performed miracles and raised one man, el-Azar-us, from the dead.
    * He walked on water.
    * He was transfigured on the Mount.
    * He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
    * He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
    * He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish.
    * His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
    * HE was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.
    * In the catacombs at Rome are pictures of Him as a baby being held by his virgin mother.

(The ancient Egyptians also adopted the cross as a religious symbol of their pagan gods. Countless Egyptians drawings depict themselves holding crosses in their hands. Among them, the Egyptian savior Horus is depicted holding a cross in his hand. He is also depicted as an infant sitting on his mother's knee with a cross on the seat they occupy. The most common of the crosses used by these Egyptians, the crux ansata, was later adopted by the Christians)

HE WAS... MITHRA (about 2000 B.C.):
    * He was born on December 25th.
    * He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
    * He had 12 companions or disciples.
    * He performed miracles.
    * He was buried in a tomb.
    * After three days he rose again.
    * His resurrection was celebrated every year.
    * He was called "the Good Shepherd."
    * He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
    * He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
    * His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
    * He had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
    * His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

("He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." An inscription to Mithras which parallels John 6:53-54. This inscription is inside the vatican... in the tomb of saint peter.)

HE WAS... KRISHNA (around 400 B.C.):
    * Born of a Virgin
    * His father was a carpenter.
    * His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
    * He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
    * He was of royal descent.
    * He was baptized in A river.
    * He worked miracles and wonders.
    * He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
    * He used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
    * "He lived poor and he loved the poor."
    * He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
    * In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
    * He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
    * He is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."
    * He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
    * He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. - His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus,"   meaning "pure essence."
    * He is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth

(The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are many. Indeed, Massey finds over 100 similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors, and Graves, who includes the various noncanonical gospels in his analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna)

HE WAS... OSIRIS-DIONYSUS (about 2500 B.C.):
    * God was his father
    * He was born in a cave or cowshed.
    * A human woman, a virgin, was his mother.
    * His birth was prophesized by a star in the heavens.
    * At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting water into wine.
    * He was powerless to perform miracles in his hometown.
    * His followers were born-again through baptism in water.
    * He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records that the inhabitants waved palm leaves.
    * He had 12 disciples.
    * He was accused of licentious behavior.
    * He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21.
    * He died "as a sacrifice for the sins of the world."
    * He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross.
    * After death, he descended into hell.
    * On the third day after his death, he returned to life.
    * The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers.
    * He later ascended to heaven.
    * His titles: God made flesh. Savior of the world Son of God.
    * He is "God made man," and equal to the Father.
    * He will return in the last days.
    * He will judge the human race at that time.
    * Humans are separated from God by original sin. The godman's sacrificial death reunites the believer with God and atones for the original sin.

There are many more Istories out there that bare similarities/exact the same stories of the mythical Jeez-us of the Lie-bel. Stories that were, in most cases, written hundreds/thousands of years before this mythical text of Jeez-us even existed. Istories from which the lie-story of Jeez-us was created/stolen from. And he i.e., the mythos is considered to be the Word of God !!? That is idol-ism !! You have created someone that does not exist as your head of worship, as your king, as your god. LOL.

P7



« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 07:06:20 PM by prophet777 »
Logged
ME NAH COM' FE BOW - ME COM' FE CONQUER !!

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #83 on: July 18, 2010, 05:12:14 AM »

1 Thimothy 2:12-13
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

I have never seen His Majesty be sexist so I struggle with the meaning of this scripture.
Logged

rastafari

  • Full User
  • ***
  • Karma: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #84 on: July 18, 2010, 09:55:55 AM »

There is civil respect and their is private and spiritual relation. You are correct that His Majesty had Queen Omega coronated alongside Himself but this did not give Her equal Ithority in the Government. She has the Ithority of the Queen. Equally His Majesty stood for equal rights for women in Civil Matters but that does not mean that He viewed them as spiritual equals. In fact, It is the very domination of the Feminine by the Masculine in their spiritual interplay that forms the basis of divinity.
Logged
To see your hurt would be their greatest ambition

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #85 on: July 18, 2010, 10:16:50 AM »

so you are telling me to dominate my woman? no wonder i can't figure what them are saying.
Logged

rastafari

  • Full User
  • ***
  • Karma: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #86 on: July 18, 2010, 12:12:45 PM »

Yes, On the energetic level that is the Divine Order.
Logged
To see your hurt would be their greatest ambition

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #87 on: July 18, 2010, 12:33:47 PM »

wow did i miss something. that might be how many people expect to be treated but there's nothing divine about it.
Logged

rastafari

  • Full User
  • ***
  • Karma: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #88 on: July 18, 2010, 12:47:01 PM »

You clearly know nothing about it as the way Masculine energy Dominates Feminine Energy is by treating it with supreme kindness. And yes you have missed and continue to miss most things while leading others into your folly and slandering Rastafari with your assosiation.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 12:50:12 PM by rastafari »
Logged
To see your hurt would be their greatest ambition

Oskar

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1828
  • Rasta man live up
Re: The Bible [please reason]
« Reply #89 on: July 18, 2010, 01:45:45 PM »

woman can not teach supreme kindness?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16
 

Page created in 0.236 seconds with 28 queries.