Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might pretend to be Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

Oh no, atheist have merely been known to murder people and burn churches filled with people --- in this world. They ignore the next. Atheists have been given more rights in the US --- while they have had scripture reading stripped from the educational system and make it nearly impossible for believers to have any influence in select fields of scientific research.

And a good job too. Nobody is stopping people doing their religions at home or in places of worship .It does not belong in schools and has no business interfering in science. You may have heard that Creationists tried to get the definition of science changed to be whatever church leaders said it was. It got nowhere in court but they tried.

As to atheists murdering people, I won't say it doesn't happen, but I reckon people is people and people of any religion or none can do murder.

And I don't know of any account of atheists burning churches filled with people. Citation perhaps?

As to persecution of Christians, they were regarded as subversive because they refused to sacrifice to the Emperors. The matter of persecution, while it real, is complex and this article set it out quite well.

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting ... ions-67365

While it may suit Christianity to play the persecuted victim, once they got power, it was the non -Christians who were persecuted, and as you mention the Holocaust, that is traceable to the anti - semitism that was a direct result of Christian dislike of Jews.

And why doesn't philosophy belong in school? And why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore? It once was. It's hard to imagine now, that Latin and Greek were once prerequisites to enter many colleges. What is the excuse for anti-Semitism today at various colleges and in the Middle East. Please don't blame all Christians for the cult practices of select state controlled groups. And it was not a "Christian" group that murdered Jews during World War I. It was an Anti-Christ group who murdered anyone whom they did like or who they wanted to steal property and money from...

Philosophy may be ok, but teaching ONE religion and none of the others is a different thing is it not? That is indoctrination.

You say yourself "why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore?" So why not the debate about (and against) the validity of religion in schools, just as we have it here? No. Bible in school is about teaching Christianity, not debating it. And the same with that other scam 'teach the controversy'. The debate is always to be had but schools are where the curriculum is taught, not discussion of rival theories and far less teaching creationism and telling lies about evolution, which is what 'teach the controversy' actually means.

At one time Latin and Greek were indeed considered the requirement of learning and later French was taught. Not so much now. It's hard enough to get them to master English it seems. And in my young days Christianity (no other religion) was taught in school.I can remember when it was stopped and I was glad to see the back of the lying tyke who called himself a teacher leave and take his fairy tales with him.

I don't think politics is what I want to get into here, but religion is at the heart of it. As to the protests, I can see both sides, the Palestinians started this, but maybe the Jewish response is open to criticism. That is not really relevant to a discussion about the truth or validity of Christianity.

As to the role of Christianity in anti semitism, It has for a long time been Christian - driven, and you mean WWII In WWI Jews fought for the Kaiser as much as any other German. But Anti -Semitism was deep rooted in Europe, thanks to Christianity and atheism hardly had any influence. You are flogging a long dead horse in trying to throw the blame for all the worlds' ills on atheists. It has long been my experience that Christian apologists like to claim that there is little support for a tiny group of atheists and yet they like to cast them as a powerful influence to blame for everything wrong.

[LittleNipper]

You can reason all you wish regarding the existence of GOD, but unless GOD is interactive, there doesn't seem to be much of a point in your ponderance.

Exactly!
You got that right!
God is not interactive, but humanity can ponder about past religions as much as it pleases. That's our privilege.
Researching early Christianity is most valuable, imo. It teaches us so much about the imposts, deceptions and politics of the early churches, just for a start.

GOD the FATHER sent to us the MESSIAH. The Bible explains your deceptions. Romans 1:16-32
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[LittleNipper]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might pretend to be Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

Oh no, atheist have merely been known to murder people and burn churches filled with people --- in this world. They ignore the next. Atheists have been given more rights in the US --- while they have had scripture reading stripped from the educational system and make it nearly impossible for believers to have any influence in select fields of scientific research.

And a good job too. Nobody is stopping people doing their religions at home or in places of worship .It does not belong in schools and has no business interfering in science. You may have heard that Creationists tried to get the definition of science changed to be whatever church leaders said it was. It got nowhere in court but they tried.

As to atheists murdering people, I won't say it doesn't happen, but I reckon people is people and people of any religion or none can do murder.

And I don't know of any account of atheists burning churches filled with people. Citation perhaps?

As to persecution of Christians, they were regarded as subversive because they refused to sacrifice to the Emperors. The matter of persecution, while it real, is complex and this article set it out quite well.

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting ... ions-67365

While it may suit Christianity to play the persecuted victim, once they got power, it was the non -Christians who were persecuted, and as you mention the Holocaust, that is traceable to the anti - semitism that was a direct result of Christian dislike of Jews.

And why doesn't philosophy belong in school? And why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore? It once was. It's hard to imagine now, that Latin and Greek were once prerequisites to enter many colleges. What is the excuse for anti-Semitism today at various colleges and in the Middle East. Please don't blame all Christians for the cult practices of select state controlled groups. And it was not a "Christian" group that murdered Jews during World War I. It was an Anti-Christ group who murdered anyone whom they did like or who they wanted to steal property and money from...

Philosophy may be ok, but teaching ONE religion and none of the others is a different thing is it not? That is indoctrination.

You say yourself "why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore?" So why not the debate about (and against) the validity of religion in schools, just as we have it here? No. Bible in school is about teaching Christianity, not debating it. And the same with that other scam 'teach the controversy'. The debate is always to be had but schools are where the curriculum is taught, not discussion of rival theories and far less teaching creationism and telling lies about evolution, which is what 'teach the controversy' actually means.

At one time Latin and Greek were indeed considered the requirement of learning and later French was taught. Not so much now. It's hard enough to get them to master English it seems. And in my young days Christianity (no other religion) was taught in school.I can remember when it was stopped and I was glad to see the back of the lying tyke who called himself a teacher leave and take his fairy tales with him.

I don't think politics is what I want to get into here, but religion is at the heart of it. As to the protests, I can see both sides, the Palestinians started this, but maybe the Jewish response is open to criticism. That is not really relevant to a discussion about the truth or validity of Christianity.

As to the role of Christianity in anti semitism, It has for a long time been Christian - driven, and you mean WWII In WWI Jews fought for the Kaiser as much as any other German. But Anti -Semitism was deep rooted in Europe, thanks to Christianity and atheism hardly had any influence. You are flogging a long dead horse in trying to throw the blame for all the worlds' ills on atheists. It has long been my experience that Christian apologists like to claim that there is little support for a tiny group of atheists and yet they like to cast them as a powerful influence to blame for everything wrong.

Do you actually believe that Christian schools do not inform students of the various theories fabricated by men; that they are not told about Mohamed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Karl Marx, Darwin, Charles Hutton, Charles Lyell, etc... Christian students generally receive a very wide education that is both informative and enlightening ------- NOT ONESIDED! They are also told concerning the good the bad and the ugly regarding "CHURCH" history. When the JW's and Mormons show up at the door --- the informed know that the Bible holds the key of the TRUTH and there is no extraneous literature of equal value.

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might pretend to be Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

Oh no, atheist have merely been known to murder people and burn churches filled with people --- in this world. They ignore the next. Atheists have been given more rights in the US --- while they have had scripture reading stripped from the educational system and make it nearly impossible for believers to have any influence in select fields of scientific research.

And a good job too. Nobody is stopping people doing their religions at home or in places of worship .It does not belong in schools and has no business interfering in science. You may have heard that Creationists tried to get the definition of science changed to be whatever church leaders said it was. It got nowhere in court but they tried.

As to atheists murdering people, I won't say it doesn't happen, but I reckon people is people and people of any religion or none can do murder.

And I don't know of any account of atheists burning churches filled with people. Citation perhaps?

As to persecution of Christians, they were regarded as subversive because they refused to sacrifice to the Emperors. The matter of persecution, while it real, is complex and this article set it out quite well.

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting ... ions-67365

While it may suit Christianity to play the persecuted victim, once they got power, it was the non -Christians who were persecuted, and as you mention the Holocaust, that is traceable to the anti - semitism that was a direct result of Christian dislike of Jews.

And why doesn't philosophy belong in school? And why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore? It once was. It's hard to imagine now, that Latin and Greek were once prerequisites to enter many colleges. What is the excuse for anti-Semitism today at various colleges and in the Middle East. Please don't blame all Christians for the cult practices of select state controlled groups. And it was not a "Christian" group that murdered Jews during World War I. It was an Anti-Christ group who murdered anyone whom they did like or who they wanted to steal property and money from...

Philosophy may be ok, but teaching ONE religion and none of the others is a different thing is it not? That is indoctrination.

You say yourself "why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore?" So why not the debate about (and against) the validity of religion in schools, just as we have it here? No. Bible in school is about teaching Christianity, not debating it. And the same with that other scam 'teach the controversy'. The debate is always to be had but schools are where the curriculum is taught, not discussion of rival theories and far less teaching creationism and telling lies about evolution, which is what 'teach the controversy' actually means.

At one time Latin and Greek were indeed considered the requirement of learning and later French was taught. Not so much now. It's hard enough to get them to master English it seems. And in my young days Christianity (no other religion) was taught in school.I can remember when it was stopped and I was glad to see the back of the lying tyke who called himself a teacher leave and take his fairy tales with him.

I don't think politics is what I want to get into here, but religion is at the heart of it. As to the protests, I can see both sides, the Palestinians started this, but maybe the Jewish response is open to criticism. That is not really relevant to a discussion about the truth or validity of Christianity.

As to the role of Christianity in anti semitism, It has for a long time been Christian - driven, and you mean WWII In WWI Jews fought for the Kaiser as much as any other German. But Anti -Semitism was deep rooted in Europe, thanks to Christianity and atheism hardly had any influence. You are flogging a long dead horse in trying to throw the blame for all the worlds' ills on atheists. It has long been my experience that Christian apologists like to claim that there is little support for a tiny group of atheists and yet they like to cast them as a powerful influence to blame for everything wrong.

Do you actually believe that Christian schools do not inform students of the various theories fabricated by men; that they are not told about Mohamed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Karl Marx, Darwin, Charles Hutton, Charles Lyell, etc... Christian students generally receive a very wide education that is both informative and enlightening ------- NOT ONESIDED! They are also told concerning the good the bad and the ugly regarding "CHURCH" history. When the JW's and Mormons show up at the door --- they know the Bible hold the key.

If that ios the case, then ok. It is not one re;ligion being preached. Of course this assumes that one religion isn't presented positively and the others not so much (and atheism either not at all or as utter evil).

Cue !Well why not teach the controversy?"

Because controversy in any science subject - biology, history, cosmology or geology - is a matter for science discussion, not schools. They should teach what is validated, not religious speculations. We teach chemistry, not alchemy, astronomy, not astrology, history, not atlantis and ancient sea kingdoms. And we teach biology and geology, not Genesis -based creationism. That had its' care to validate itself as science at Kitzmiller vs Dover and it failed. It does not belong in schools.

Just so we don't get that argument brought up

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #284]

Because controversy in any science subject - biology, history, cosmology or geology - is a matter for science discussion, not schools. They should teach what is validated, not religious speculations. We teach chemistry, not alchemy, astronomy, not astrology, history, not atlantis and ancient sea kingdoms. And we teach biology and geology, not Genesis -based creationism. That had its' care to validate itself as science at Kitzmiller vs Dover and it failed. It does not belong in schools.

Atlantis was referred to in historical writings by Plato. Probably linked to the "sea kingdom" of the later surviving Hittites. As for "alchemy", the father of science, Newton, clearly was an alchemist in the eyes of the modern woke, as he sought the philosopher's stone, and has been recently discovered, he felt he found it. As for "geology", it is finding that the pyramids, or more explicitly, the Sphinx, was created closer to 12000 years ago, closer to the time of Atlantis, than any Egyptian kingdom. As for the biology of DNA, or recent archeology discoveries, they are overturning all of your "history". As for "science", the Webb telescope is overturning all of your ideas around established astronomy, plus questioning the scientific theories around gravity and time. Your scientific theories are all falling apart. As for your woke "schools", they are filled with uppity idiots, with some having more DEI hires than students or professors. As for "discussion", the topic of the Supreme Court now, is the topic of discussions being squashed by the administration and their woke followers, including schools and the media.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #284]

Because controversy in any science subject - biology, history, cosmology or geology - is a matter for science discussion, not schools. They should teach what is validated, not religious speculations. We teach chemistry, not alchemy, astronomy, not astrology, history, not atlantis and ancient sea kingdoms. And we teach biology and geology, not Genesis -based creationism. That had its' care to validate itself as science at Kitzmiller vs Dover and it failed. It does not belong in schools.

Atlantis was referred to in historical writings by Plato. Probably linked to the "sea kingdom" of the later surviving Hittites. As for "alchemy", the father of science, Newton, clearly was an alchemist in the eyes of the modern woke, as he sought the philosopher's stone, and has been recently discovered, he felt he found it. As for "geology", it is finding that the pyramids, or more explicitly, the Sphinx, was created closer to 12000 years ago, closer to the time of Atlantis, than any Egyptian kingdom. As for the biology of DNA, or recent archeology discoveries, they are overturning all of your "history". As for "science", the Webb telescope is overturning all of your ideas around established astronomy, plus questioning the scientific theories around gravity and time. Your scientific theories are all falling apart. As for your woke "schools", they are filled with uppity idiots, with some having more DEI hires than students or professors. As for "discussion", the topic of the Supreme Court now, is the topic of discussions being squashed by the administration and their woke followers, including schools and the media.

Yes. Well that merely shows that Newton while being a foundational physicist, was studying alchemy, Astrology and the book of Daniel, showing that research, not Authority, is what counts.

And, yes, it is quite likely that the Atlantis myth refers to the volcano on the Island of Thera. That does not validate alternative history, like Chariots of the gods, Atlantean sea kingdoms or the Exodus, which I am increasingly betting is a fake history loosely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos.

So far as I know, DNA is only confirming science not undermining but perhaps you'd like to give examples. I doubt the sphinx is as old as you claim. The head is clearly of a pharaoh and 12,000 years ago Egyptian civilisation didn't even exist. I'd guess it could be based on a natural rock basis that may be that old, though. Maybe you'd like to reference your claim?

And yes the Webb telescope has raised questions about the age of the universe, but that means no more than Kepler replacing Copernicus' circular orbits with elliptical ones. Having to revise the date will not bring us back to a 6 day creation.

Science thrives on finding errors and correcting them. It is not like religious dogma that denies ever being wrong and then sneakily catches up and claims that is what it said all along.

Apart from various science denial of course. I'll leave be your immoderate attacks on schools colleges courts and anyone who does not fit your preferences.
But I appreciate your post as (not for the first time) the Bible believers and science denialists may ask "Is that what I sound like?"

p.s I had a quick look and the 12,000 year old sphinx story sounds convincing - if one only listens to the rather sensationalist presentations that are exciting to hear.

The mundane science is that the head is tough limestone but the body is poor - you can crumble it in your fingers. That is why it is far more eroded than the head. But if it was 12,000 years old in the mid - Miocene (wet Africa)period, the Nile would have inundated the sphinx, not only making it impossible to carve out but would have heavily eroded the body so we'd just have the head lying on the sand today, and maybe the base.

[LittleNipper]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might pretend to be Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

Oh no, atheist have merely been known to murder people and burn churches filled with people --- in this world. They ignore the next. Atheists have been given more rights in the US --- while they have had scripture reading stripped from the educational system and make it nearly impossible for believers to have any influence in select fields of scientific research.

And a good job too. Nobody is stopping people doing their religions at home or in places of worship .It does not belong in schools and has no business interfering in science. You may have heard that Creationists tried to get the definition of science changed to be whatever church leaders said it was. It got nowhere in court but they tried.

As to atheists murdering people, I won't say it doesn't happen, but I reckon people is people and people of any religion or none can do murder.

And I don't know of any account of atheists burning churches filled with people. Citation perhaps?

As to persecution of Christians, they were regarded as subversive because they refused to sacrifice to the Emperors. The matter of persecution, while it real, is complex and this article set it out quite well.

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting ... ions-67365

While it may suit Christianity to play the persecuted victim, once they got power, it was the non -Christians who were persecuted, and as you mention the Holocaust, that is traceable to the anti - semitism that was a direct result of Christian dislike of Jews.

And why doesn't philosophy belong in school? And why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore? It once was. It's hard to imagine now, that Latin and Greek were once prerequisites to enter many colleges. What is the excuse for anti-Semitism today at various colleges and in the Middle East. Please don't blame all Christians for the cult practices of select state controlled groups. And it was not a "Christian" group that murdered Jews during World War I. It was an Anti-Christ group who murdered anyone whom they did like or who they wanted to steal property and money from...

Philosophy may be ok, but teaching ONE religion and none of the others is a different thing is it not? That is indoctrination.

You say yourself "why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore?" So why not the debate about (and against) the validity of religion in schools, just as we have it here? No. Bible in school is about teaching Christianity, not debating it. And the same with that other scam 'teach the controversy'. The debate is always to be had but schools are where the curriculum is taught, not discussion of rival theories and far less teaching creationism and telling lies about evolution, which is what 'teach the controversy' actually means.

At one time Latin and Greek were indeed considered the requirement of learning and later French was taught. Not so much now. It's hard enough to get them to master English it seems. And in my young days Christianity (no other religion) was taught in school.I can remember when it was stopped and I was glad to see the back of the lying tyke who called himself a teacher leave and take his fairy tales with him.

I don't think politics is what I want to get into here, but religion is at the heart of it. As to the protests, I can see both sides, the Palestinians started this, but maybe the Jewish response is open to criticism. That is not really relevant to a discussion about the truth or validity of Christianity.

As to the role of Christianity in anti semitism, It has for a long time been Christian - driven, and you mean WWII In WWI Jews fought for the Kaiser as much as any other German. But Anti -Semitism was deep rooted in Europe, thanks to Christianity and atheism hardly had any influence. You are flogging a long dead horse in trying to throw the blame for all the worlds' ills on atheists. It has long been my experience that Christian apologists like to claim that there is little support for a tiny group of atheists and yet they like to cast them as a powerful influence to blame for everything wrong.

Do you actually believe that Christian schools do not inform students of the various theories fabricated by men; that they are not told about Mohamed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Karl Marx, Darwin, Charles Hutton, Charles Lyell, etc... Christian students generally receive a very wide education that is both informative and enlightening ------- NOT ONESIDED! They are also told concerning the good the bad and the ugly regarding "CHURCH" history. When the JW's and Mormons show up at the door --- they know the Bible hold the key.

If that ios the case, then ok. It is not one re;ligion being preached. Of course this assumes that one religion isn't presented positively and the others not so much (and atheism either not at all or as utter evil).

Cue !Well why not teach the controversy?"

Because controversy in any science subject - biology, history, cosmology or geology - is a matter for science discussion, not schools. They should teach what is validated, not religious speculations. We teach chemistry, not alchemy, astronomy, not astrology, history, not atlantis and ancient sea kingdoms. And we teach biology and geology, not Genesis -based creationism. That had its' care to validate itself as science at Kitzmiller vs Dover and it failed. It does not belong in schools.

Just so we don't get that argument brought up

Controversy is what makes education of any value. Students learn how to think for themselves and weigh evidence for themselves. To teach science theory as absolute is to indoctrinate where there is no possibility of duplication. And no religion nor science evaluation which cannot stand up to scrutiny should be protected from polite tempered ridicule. That means that Darwin can be faulted, Charles Russell trial can be discussed, and Joseph Smith bigamy and destruction of the newspaper press belonging to the Nauvoo Expositor are areas for discussion ---- at least among junior and senior high school students. But again, this open the can of worms in all areas of debate, including science, history, literature, social studies, and even art & music.

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might pretend to be Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

Oh no, atheist have merely been known to murder people and burn churches filled with people --- in this world. They ignore the next. Atheists have been given more rights in the US --- while they have had scripture reading stripped from the educational system and make it nearly impossible for believers to have any influence in select fields of scientific research.

And a good job too. Nobody is stopping people doing their religions at home or in places of worship .It does not belong in schools and has no business interfering in science. You may have heard that Creationists tried to get the definition of science changed to be whatever church leaders said it was. It got nowhere in court but they tried.

As to atheists murdering people, I won't say it doesn't happen, but I reckon people is people and people of any religion or none can do murder.

And I don't know of any account of atheists burning churches filled with people. Citation perhaps?

As to persecution of Christians, they were regarded as subversive because they refused to sacrifice to the Emperors. The matter of persecution, while it real, is complex and this article set it out quite well.

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting ... ions-67365

While it may suit Christianity to play the persecuted victim, once they got power, it was the non -Christians who were persecuted, and as you mention the Holocaust, that is traceable to the anti - semitism that was a direct result of Christian dislike of Jews.

And why doesn't philosophy belong in school? And why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore? It once was. It's hard to imagine now, that Latin and Greek were once prerequisites to enter many colleges. What is the excuse for anti-Semitism today at various colleges and in the Middle East. Please don't blame all Christians for the cult practices of select state controlled groups. And it was not a "Christian" group that murdered Jews during World War I. It was an Anti-Christ group who murdered anyone whom they did like or who they wanted to steal property and money from...

Philosophy may be ok, but teaching ONE religion and none of the others is a different thing is it not? That is indoctrination.

You say yourself "why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore?" So why not the debate about (and against) the validity of religion in schools, just as we have it here? No. Bible in school is about teaching Christianity, not debating it. And the same with that other scam 'teach the controversy'. The debate is always to be had but schools are where the curriculum is taught, not discussion of rival theories and far less teaching creationism and telling lies about evolution, which is what 'teach the controversy' actually means.

At one time Latin and Greek were indeed considered the requirement of learning and later French was taught. Not so much now. It's hard enough to get them to master English it seems. And in my young days Christianity (no other religion) was taught in school.I can remember when it was stopped and I was glad to see the back of the lying tyke who called himself a teacher leave and take his fairy tales with him.

I don't think politics is what I want to get into here, but religion is at the heart of it. As to the protests, I can see both sides, the Palestinians started this, but maybe the Jewish response is open to criticism. That is not really relevant to a discussion about the truth or validity of Christianity.

As to the role of Christianity in anti semitism, It has for a long time been Christian - driven, and you mean WWII In WWI Jews fought for the Kaiser as much as any other German. But Anti -Semitism was deep rooted in Europe, thanks to Christianity and atheism hardly had any influence. You are flogging a long dead horse in trying to throw the blame for all the worlds' ills on atheists. It has long been my experience that Christian apologists like to claim that there is little support for a tiny group of atheists and yet they like to cast them as a powerful influence to blame for everything wrong.

Do you actually believe that Christian schools do not inform students of the various theories fabricated by men; that they are not told about Mohamed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Karl Marx, Darwin, Charles Hutton, Charles Lyell, etc... Christian students generally receive a very wide education that is both informative and enlightening ------- NOT ONESIDED! They are also told concerning the good the bad and the ugly regarding "CHURCH" history. When the JW's and Mormons show up at the door --- they know the Bible hold the key.

If that ios the case, then ok. It is not one re;ligion being preached. Of course this assumes that one religion isn't presented positively and the others not so much (and atheism either not at all or as utter evil).

Cue !Well why not teach the controversy?"

Because controversy in any science subject - biology, history, cosmology or geology - is a matter for science discussion, not schools. They should teach what is validated, not religious speculations. We teach chemistry, not alchemy, astronomy, not astrology, history, not atlantis and ancient sea kingdoms. And we teach biology and geology, not Genesis -based creationism. That had its' care to validate itself as science at Kitzmiller vs Dover and it failed. It does not belong in schools.

Just so we don't get that argument brought up

Controversy is what makes education of any value. Students learn how to think for themselves and weigh evidence for themselves. To teach science theory as absolute is to indoctrinate where there is no possibility of duplication. And no religion nor science evaluation which cannot stand up to scrutiny should be protected from polite tempered ridicule. That means that Darwin can be faulted, Charles Russell trial can be discussed, and Joseph Smith bigamy and destruction of the newspaper press belonging to the Nauvoo Expositor are areas for discussion ---- at least among junior and senior high school students. But again, this open the can of worms in all areas of debate, including science, history, literature, social studies, and even art & music.

Of course. Question everything.But in the expertise is the place to do it, not the schools. Let them learn the subject before they start arguing about it. Christianity is not going to be debated in school - not openly. Questions will be responded to by the teacher with the usual apologetics. Further questioning will be blocked: "The bible experts are smarter than you. Don't question what you don't understand yet".or something of the kind. What is taught in schools is to be learned, not debated as 'controversy'.

[oldbadger]

God is not interactive ...

That is like saying a woman is not sexual because she wont have sex with you!

No, it's like saying that God is too vast to be aware of us, just in the same way that there is (for example) a cell in your left kidney which is a part of you but that you are completely unaware of!

Nobody can prove God does not interact with ANYONE, it is an unprovable assumption.

Just sayin'
JW

My analogy shows that anybody can show how there is no interaction.
Even this galaxy is quite tiny when compared with all, yet you believe that God is interested in a very recent species on a spec of dust called 'Earth'.
QED.

[TRANSPONDER]

God is not interactive ...

That is like saying a woman is not sexual because she wont have sex with you!

No, it's like saying that God is too vast to be aware of us, just in the same way that there is (for example) a cell in your left kidney which is a part of you but that you are completely unaware of!

Nobody can prove God does not interact with ANYONE, it is an unprovable assumption.

Just sayin'
JW

My analogy shows that anybody can show how there is no interaction.
Even this galaxy is quite tiny when compared with all, yet you believe that God is interested in a very recent species on a spec of dust called 'Earth'.
QED.

Yes. It has been argued that it is improbable that a Cosmic Mind would be so concerned about what we did in the bedroom. But of course bearded old men who never got any would be obsessed in controlling the habits of others.

There was a quip about the creator of stars, galaxies and universes says to himself "I've really got to tell that fella not to pick up sticks on a Saturday".

This is the obsessions of men, not of a god.