Religions > Bible > Why The Holy Bible Lies #151 - 170 - Jesus Li(v)es!
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2007 07:31:44 PM |
| Object: |
Why The Holy Bible Lies #151 - 170 - Jesus Li(v)es! |
#151.
Jesus lies about his return:
Mat.16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom."
(Amplified in Mar. 9:1 & Luk. 9:27)
And:
Mat. 23:36 "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon
this generation."
(Amplified in Mat. 24:34, Mar. 13:30, Luk. 17:25, Luk. 21:32)
So does Paul:
1 Cor. 7:29 "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it
remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;"
And:
1 The. 4:15 "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not
prevent them which are asleep."
Some 2,000 years later, we're still waiting. This is the single most
serious indictment of the Bible. It's not the word of a person, but
the quoted words of the son-of-a-god. And he lied.
There's no ambiguity here. He was speaking of the generation then
alive. He was insisting that his return was imminent. Everyone at
the time believed it. Paul preached it. Look at this in Matthew
10:23: "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the
cities of Israel till the Son of man be come."
That's Jesus himself again. Lying.
This is the most important story in scripture for the Christians.
It's the life of their savior. It was dictated by the Holy Spirit
according to the Bible:
"Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled,
which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before..." (Act 1:16)
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:" (2Tim 3:16)
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2Pet 1:21)
Jerome insisted that, for example, the book of Romans was dictated by
the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul. Origen insisted that the
scriptures are not the *creation* of human beings. And Jesus insisted
in Matthew 22 that the Bible contained the direct words of this god
himself!
So it's supposed to be the most important communication ever given to
humanity, dictated by the Holy Spirit, yet here we are, finding errors
and lies galore. Why is that? Why *does* the Holy Bible lie? If it
truly is the word of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving god, dictated
to or inspired in people to record for posterity, why does it lie?
Why are there errors and mistakes?
Is it because this god is incompetent or uncaring? Is it because the
message really isn't that important - or isn't important any more? Or
does the Bible lie because it was not written by, nor inspired by, nor
dictated by any god or Jesus or Holy "Ghost", but is solely,
completely, and exclusively the invention of gullible, primitive
people who didn't know any better?
#152.
It's all Greek to me:
Mat. 15:22 "...a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and
cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David;
my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil."
Mar. 7:25-26 "For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean
spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: The woman was a
Greek, a Syrophenician by nation..."
So was she Caananite or Greek? Again, the Holy Word of God lets us
down with its lack of reliability.
#153.
Mat. 17:1-2 "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John
his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was
transfigured before them..."
Or:
Luk. 9:28-29 "And it came to pass about an eight days after these
sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain
to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was
altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."
So was he transfigured after six days or after about eight days? And
why does the son-of-a-god have to climb a mountain to commune with
this god? Is this harking back to El Shaddai - the unreliable god of
the mountains?
#154.
And what about this:
Mat. 19:17 "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments."
So is Jesus God or isn't he?! Is Jesus good, or isn't he?!!
#155.
Another gospel lie:
Mat. 20:17"And Jesus...said unto them...the Son of man shall be
betrayed unto the chief priests...and they shall...crucify him: and
the third day he shall rise again."
And:
Mar. 10:32-34 "...Jesus...began to tell them what things should happen
unto him, Saying...the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief
priests...and they shall condemn him to death...and the third day he
shall rise again."
And:
Luk. 18:31-33 "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto
them...the Son of man...shall be mocked...And they shall scourge him,
and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again."
But:
Joh. 20:9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise
again from the dead."
#156.
Mat. 20:20 "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her
sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him."
Or:
Mar. 10:35 "And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him,
saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we
shall desire."
So was it their Mom or they themselves asking? Why can't the Holy
Word of God be right? Consistent? Reliable? Is it because it's
actually not the word of any god? Or is it because this god is too
incompetent to pick reliable people to record his word?
#157.
Mat. 20:23 "...but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not
mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of
my Father."
Or:
Mat. 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth."
Just who is in charge in Heaven?
#158.
The blind leading the blind:
Mat. 20:30-32 "And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way
side...And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye
that I shall do unto you?"
But:
Mar. 10:46-51 "And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho
with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the
son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging...And Jesus answered
and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?" (duhh!
Bar-Timaeus actually means the son of Timaeus!)
Two problems here: Matthew yet again feels the need to elaborate on
Mark's original fairy tale. For Matthew, Jesus wasn't quite good
enough, so he enhanced him at every turn. Jesus didn't cure one blind
man, but two! That makes him twice as good, doesn't it? Twice as
Holy, twice as miraculous, twice as salvational twice as
sensational....
The other problem is Jesus' ignorance. A blind man calls to him, and
Jesus is so stupid that he has no clue what the blind man wants! Well
a rough guess would be his vision - duh! But even if it were
somehting else that he might ask for, doesn't the so-of-a-god, who
knows what we want even before he forces us to beg for it in prayer
Jesus ought to be cited for lack of foresight....
#159.
Mat. 21:7 "And brought the *****, and the colt, and put on them their
clothes, and they set him thereon."
Or:
Mar. 11:7 "And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments
on him; and he sat upon him."
Seeking to tie everything back to the Old Testament, Matthew makes an
***** of himself by quoting a garbled Zechariah 9:9, while Mark, in his
earlier work, writes something that makes sense. Matthew once again
has to make Jesus twice the man he supposedly was! One ***** for each
cheek?
#160.
Go tell it on the mountain?
Mat. 26:34 "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this
night, before the ***** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
(Thus saith Jesus to Peter - in the room of the last supper,
immediately after communion.)
Mar. 14:30 "And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That
this day, even in this night, before the ***** crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice."
(Thus saith Jesus to Peter - after leaving the room of the last supper
and arriving at mount of Olives - someone is lying!)
Or:
Luk. 22:34 "And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the ***** shall not crow
this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."
Luk. 22:60-61 "And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And
immediately, while he yet spake, the ***** crew. And the Lord turned,
and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how
he had said unto him, Before the ***** crow, thou shalt deny me
thrice."
But Look at Mark:
Mar. 14:66-68 "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh
one of the maids of the high priest: And when she saw Peter warming
himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus
of Nazareth. But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I
what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the ***** crew."
(So what was Jesus' actual prediction? That Peter would deny thrice
before the ***** crew at all, or that he would deny thrice before the
***** crowed twice?
Well that depends on which gospel you read, and we have yet another
serious issue of whether or not the story of Jesus is being reported
accurately by those who ought to know it best, or if they're simply
lying about there even being a story.
If this were a simple newspaper account or courtroom testimony from
ordinary eye-witnesses, it would be surprising if there were not
details adrift. But this is not the case here. This is supposed to
be divinely ordained and guided testimony. Obviously it is not.
The fact is that the New Testament carries such a sense of immediacy
and urgency about Jesus' impending return that no one ever thought
they would need to write it down - they were expecting the end times
to pass before many of those then alive had died. They didn't need to
write it down, only pass it on by word of mouth. They were certainly
not expecting that some 30 years after his death, quite literally
nothing would have happened and they would be forced to write the
story down before they died, unsalvaged! Of course, they might have
had more faith had the story actually taken place in the first place.
#161.
Jesus at crossed swords - or crossed purposes?
Mat. 26:52 "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his
place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
But:
Luk. 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one."
So did Jesus come to turn families against each other and have them at
sword-tips? Was he in favor of sword control? Or is it all lies?
Just out of curiosity, why was it that the disciples of the son-of-a-
god, capable of performing miracles even *need* to carry swords?
#162.
Hi-Ho Silver!
Mat. 27:5-9 "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and
departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the
silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the
treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel,
and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The Field of Blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him
that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value..."
Once again Matthew makes of himself a liar, so desperate is he to
quote the prophets and, rather than tell the simple truth (as he
believed), serve up the story like a dog's dinner instead. The quote
is not from Jeremiah ("Jeremy") but Zechariah 11:12-13: "...So they
weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver...And I took the thirty
pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the
LORD." (this guy is purportedly telling the greatest story ever told
and he doesn't even have scriptures in his house to check this
stuff?!)
Or:
Act. 1:18- 19 "18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at
Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue,
Aceldama, that is to say, The Field of Blood."
None of the other gospels mention the fate of Judas. Luke glosses
over it in Acts, but tells a different story from Matthew. Some
bleaters try to wheedle out of the obvious contradiction over his
death by whining that he hanged himself, then the rope broke, and he
fell down and burst asunder. If this is true, why do not both stories
tell it the same way instead of making it look like there is a
contradiction? The first mentions nothing of hanging, but
specifically says, 'fell headlong' which would not be possible if you
were hanging feet down.
Either way, they still have not explained the discrepancy in who
purchased the field. It categorically says, in the one case, that
Judas bought it with his money, and in the other, that Judas bought
nothing with his money but threw it back at the priests and then
hanged himself, then the priests bought the field. Even if they
bought it in Judas' name, this is not the same as Judas buying it.
Any attempt to resolve these issues results not in what the scriptures
say, but in a correction of what the scriptures say, after the manner
of Matthew, who pretty much invented his whole gospel.)
Interestingly, Luke tells this tale in Acts 5:37: "After this man rose
up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much
people after him: he also perished..."
Judas of Galilee?
The one who wanted to foment,
disappointed that Jesus wouldn't?
Judas the betrayer,
turned into Judas the Slayer?
We don't know. We can only surmise.
But that's the way it is when the Holy Bible lies.
#163.
The Word is silent?
Mat. 27:14 "And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the
governor marveled greatly."
But that's not what others say:
1 Tim. 6:13 "I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth
all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate
witnessed a good confession..."
Good confession?
Mar. 15:5 "But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marveled."
Luk. 23:3 "And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the
Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it."
Luke reports the entire text of his "good confession": three words!
John reports a rambling mess of text that is clearly complete fiction
and amounts to no more than: "My kingdom is not of this world, I am
here to tell the truth."
What bothers me about all of this is this verse:
Joh. 18:28 "Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of
judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the
judgment hall, lest they should be defiled..."
So here we have a statement - no Jews can go into the judgment hall
lest they be defiled, and unable to partake of Passover, since they
would have too little time to cleanse themselves afterwards (not that
the Sanhedrin would actually meet at night anyway).
The disciples were also in this same predicament, especially since
they were in danger of being imprisoned too. If none of these people
were in the judgment hall, then where did the stories of Jesus' words
and the actions of the Romans come from? So you see, by the Bible's
own admission, all of this is made up.
And what is this crisis of faith on the part of those chicken
disciples? They were (according to the gospels) actually with God on
a daily basis. They heard his words and saw his miracles, yet not a
single one of them stood up for Jesus or was truly by his side at the
passion and crucifixion, nor did any of them really believe he would
be resurrected. In short, they had no faith! Why, then, should we?
Moreover, why should we, who have never shared this experience, be
punished for having less faith than these disciples? Why should we be
derided for demanding proof of these farcical myths?
#164.
Maybe the bruises were purple?
Mat. 27:27-31 "Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the
common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And
they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had
platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in
his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him,
saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the
reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him,
they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and
led him away to crucify him."
Or:
Joh. 19:1-3 "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And
the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and
they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and
they smote him with their hands."
Pilate scourged him? The actual governor, who had quite literally
washed his hands of the whole thing? The reason I quote so much of
this is not only because I delight in reading how God was whipped so
good by the Romans, but in the contradictory details, particularly
with the color of the robe.
But again, how did this story ever get out? Jesus apparently didn't
tell it. There were no apostles present. The Romans were highly
unlikely to be drinking buddies of the the Jews, whereby they might
have related such stories.
Could it be that none of this happened - that it was all made up?!
#165.
Mat. 27:32 "And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by
name: him they compelled to bear his cross."
Joh. 19:17 "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called
the place of a skull..."
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are for once in agreement, but John differs.
Did Jesus carry his cross or did Simon?
Couldn't the so-called "eye-witnesses" even remember *that*?
#166.
Mat. 27:37 "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS
JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Or:
Mar. 15:26 "And the superscription of his accusation was written over,
THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Or:
Luk. 23:38 "And a superscription also was written over him in letters
of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Or:
Joh. 19:19 "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the
writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Did none of the gospel writers actually really read anything the
others had written? There can have been only one inscription. It was
one of the most public things of the whole affair. Everyone must have
read it. It ought to have been engraved on their minds, yet every
single gospel writer reports it differently from the others.
Or invents it differently.
#167.
Mat. 27:44 "The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the
same in his teeth."
Luk. 23:39 "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on
him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."
So was it one thief or both thieves? Both stories cannot be true. Is
it likely either is true? Well, who was there to witness it? Would
the disciples in hiding, running scared, no faith in this god of
theirs, actually have been there in full view of the Roman army?
This event was completely unimportant. it makes no difference to the
salvation story if there were no thieves, no people or 500 assorted
people crucified with him. It makes no difference at all, so why even
report it? And if the Holy Spirit deems it important enough to
report, why cannot it "dicate" or "inspire" accurately?
#168.
And what were Jesus last words?
Matthew gives pretty much the same story as Mark - he quotes "My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and then says:
Mat. 27:50 "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded
up the ghost."
So we don't know what his last words were, unless the last utterance
was literally nothing more than a cry.
Luk. 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he
gave up the ghost."
So were these his last words? Was the cry of Matthew and Mark these
very words? If so, how does this tie in with the previous utterance?
Are we really to believe that Jesus asked why his dad had forsaken him
and then commended his spirit to that self-same absent God? If Luke
and Matthew copied from Mark, how come their accounts differ?
Joh. 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It
is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
John's account is completely different from any of the others. You
would think if Jesus really existed, and went through all that is
claimed, and had such faithful followers who hung on his every word,
that they could at least get his final words right. But they cannot.
Is it because they were ismply making it all up?
#169.
Mat. 27:56 "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."
But:
Mar. 3:17 "And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of
James..."
So in the first verse, is Mary - the mother of James and Joses - the
same as 'the mother of Zebedee's children" - mistakenly mentioned
twice - or were there two moms hanging out together, one of whom has
sons James and Joses, the other having James and John? Or is Joses
the same as John and is yet another confused explosion of names in
God's Holy Word? Who can tell? Is this wrong because the Holy Spirit
screwed-up his dictation or his inspiration?
Or is it wrong because these gospellers were simply making up this
fiction as they went along?
#170.
No discipline on disciple numbers:
Mat. 28:16 "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a
mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And:
Act. 1:13 "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper
room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip,
and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and
Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James."
That's actually Thaddeus, but why start calling him Judas, now?!!
(Note that only Luke does this, but then his list of disciples doesn't
quite jive with those of the other gospellers.) Would anyone want to
be identified as Judas after what had happened? Assuming it did
happen, of course....
Anyway, there are still only 11, but:
1 Cor. 15:5 "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:"
Apologists will say that this was simply a convention, referring to
Peter as one of the (original) twelve, but it is another example of
loose-talk in what is supposed to be the divinely accurate word of
God. Every such example takes something away from the value of the
testimony, and there are way-too-many examples. Matthias wasn't
appointed until Acts 1:26 - but why was he appointed at all? Why did
there have to be twelve? We don't know! There is some
suggestion that there were no such disciples, but the names came from
legend, tied in with the twelve constellations of the Zodiac, the
twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve moons of the year. It wouldn't
surprise me, especially if these people were simply making up stories.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "L. Conrad" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #151 - 170 - Jesus Li(v)es! |
04 Apr 2007 08:04:03 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1175733104.119760.108920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
#151.
Jesus lies about his return:
Mat.16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom."
(Amplified in Mar. 9:1 & Luk. 9:27)
And:
Mat. 23:36 "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon
this generation."
(Amplified in Mat. 24:34, Mar. 13:30, Luk. 17:25, Luk. 21:32)
So does Paul:
1 Cor. 7:29 "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it
remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;"
And:
1 The. 4:15 "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not
prevent them which are asleep."
Some 2,000 years later, we're still waiting. This is the single most
serious indictment of the Bible. It's not the word of a person, but
the quoted words of the son-of-a-god. And he lied.
Maybe not lied. Maybe he believed he was who they were saying he was. If I
was told I was the Prince of Bolgar from childhood on, I would know no
better. I would believe I was the Prince of Bolgar. That is, if this Jesus
ever existed at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #151 - 170 - Jesus Li(v)es! |
05 Apr 2007 04:49:00 AM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 8:04 pm, "L. Conrad" <inva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1175733104.119760.108920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
#151.
Jesus lies about his return:
Mat.16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom."
(Amplified in Mar. 9:1 & Luk. 9:27)
And:
Mat. 23:36 "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon
this generation."
(Amplified in Mat. 24:34, Mar. 13:30, Luk. 17:25, Luk. 21:32)
So does Paul:
1 Cor. 7:29 "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it
remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;"
And:
1 The. 4:15 "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not
prevent them which are asleep."
Some 2,000 years later, we're still waiting. This is the single most
serious indictment of the Bible. It's not the word of a person, but
the quoted words of the son-of-a-god. And he lied.
Maybe not lied. Maybe he believed he was who they were saying he was. If I
was told I was the Prince of Bolgar from childhood on, I would know no
better. I would believe I was the Prince of Bolgar. That is, if this Jesus
ever existed at all.
He didn't exist according to scientific evidence - of which is none.
But when you declare that you will return to Earth in your glory
before the generation then living has passed away and 2,000 years
later you haven't shown up, you lied, regardless of what your
intentions or blind beliefs are.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
