Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disapproving Creation: The Real Christmas Message
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
Dec 23, 2011, 7:16:34 AM12/23/11
to
Creationists love to lie that evolution has no evidence when it
truthfully has one hundred and fifty years of solid verifiable,
repeatable science underlying it. But what of the New Testament
story? Why are creationists too scared to even consider their own
fables under the same light as they view the solid scientific Theory
of Evolution? because they're hypocrites, every last one of them.
Their myth has ZERO objective independent evidence that there ever was
a jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, and the believers
themselves admit this by failing to produce it!
It has ZERO repeateble evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god, and the believers themselves admit this
by failing to produce it!
it has ZERO verifiable evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god, and the believers themselves admit this
by failing to produce it!
All the evidence we do have counts strongly against it, but let's not
even concern ourselves with that for the moment, let's consider only
the evidence the *Bible* *itself* offers.
According to the Bible, the majority of the companions of Jesus were
simple illiterate folk. How could they have even begun to write a
gospel? lol! And why would such a crucial event in the history of
humankind (so we're expected to believe) have been left completely to
chance without *a* *single* *written* *record* from its supposed
founder? I say supposed, because Jesus is not actually the founder of
Christianity. Nope - that was Paul (who himself may be fiction) -
more on that later.
The book attributed to 'Mark' is generally agreed upon as being the
earliest gospel written (although it is far from the earliest NT book
written). The problem is that there's no evidence that anyone called
'Mark', or anyone who had personal experience of the purported events,
actually wrote it. In short, it's a lie before we even start reading
it!
And for the earliest book on the topic, Mark offers *no* account of
any virgin birth or visitation by angels! Not a single word! That
part of the myth was concocted later.
And what about the death and resurrection? Again,the earliest book
says *not* *a* *word*. The original Mark - that is, the earliest
manuscript that we have - ends not at Mark 16: 20, but here:
"And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they
trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for
they were afraid." Mark 16:8.
Not a *single* *word* about anyone being resurrected - just some guy
sitting there *telling* them there was a resurrection. That patent
fiction was concocted later and added in. My favorite theory is that
the guy sitting there was an atheist having some fun with the
fundies. An atheist started the Christ myth! lol!
In short, the entirety of Christianity - the whole Christian message
of virgin birth and resurrection - was never a part of the first
gospel. Never.
There is good evidence that the manuscript was *deliberately* changed
for the very purpose of lying:
"Revision and editorial error may also contribute. Most differences
are trivial but Mark 1:41, where the leper approached Jesus begging to
be healed, is significant. Early (Western) manuscripts say that Jesus
became angry with the leper while later (Byzantine) versions indicate
that Jesus showed compassion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
A deliberate lie in the gospel.
And what of that virgin birth? It never was a virgin birth. The
story was plagiarized from Isaiah. Only Matthew and Luke, evidently
using the same lie, claim this. Paul, who writes far earlier than
*any* of the gospelers, makes no such claim.
"Matthew, writing in Greek about the virgin birth of Jesus, quotes the
Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word
"παρθένος" (parthenos, virgin), while the original Hebrew text has
"עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried,
betrothed，or newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed
Abijah, daughter of Zechariah."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
In short, Matthew was at best clueless, at worst a deliberate liar.
And we're supposed to believe his "good news"?! lol!
If the Theory of Evolution was really as weak as this nativity and
resurrection bullshit - and it most certainly is not - then the
creationists would rightly have a field day with it, yet they swallow
all of these religious lies without so much as a hiccup. They're
hypocrites, every last one of them.
Here's how "Luke" begins his gospel: "Forasmuch as many have taken in
hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are
most surely believed among us,"
Note that there is no suggestion that it actually happened here.
There is only "belief", but more importantly here is the assertion
that he makes that many people have told stories about it. So what
happened to the other fables? They were systematically hunted down
and *destroyed* by a church intent upon making up its own fable,
controlling that fable, and destroying all evidence which would show
that fable to be a lie. They failed.
How the the conspiracy theorists and cover-up merchants (theists
almost every one) *never* talk about this - the most massive cover-up
of the truth in human history?! The truth was known back then and it
was deliberately hidden until all we have today is fiction.
But let's stick with the Bible itself. That's the only text we need
to show what a confection of lies and deceit the stories are.
So on the one hand we have the supposed eye witnesses - those who were
actually, so we're expected to believe, companions of this Messiah,
and then we have Paul, who never met Jesus, who wrote before *any* of
the gospelers, but who wrote *nothing* about virgin births and bodily
resurrections - who wrote nothing about Jesus as a person. Even when
quoting Jesus would have helped his case, Paul *never* *does* *so*.
In short, to the earliest writer of any of the NT manuscripts, Jesus
was already fiction.
Worse than that, Paul invented his own Christianity which had
*nothing* *whatsoever* to do with what the Messiah himself had
purportedly taught, and then he wrenched the embryonic Christian
church *away* from those Messianic followers and companions, and re-
made it into what Christians practice today!
Today what Christians do has *nothing* *whatsoever* to do with any
Jesus! It's all Paul.
Jesus was a Jew. His religion was Judaism - the very people and the
very religion which all-too-many of today's Christians deride and
reject.
That's how far the mighty have fallen. That's how deluded Christians
are. That's the real Christmas message.
Budikka
truthfully has one hundred and fifty years of solid verifiable,
repeatable science underlying it. But what of the New Testament
story? Why are creationists too scared to even consider their own
fables under the same light as they view the solid scientific Theory
of Evolution? because they're hypocrites, every last one of them.
Their myth has ZERO objective independent evidence that there ever was
a jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, and the believers
themselves admit this by failing to produce it!
It has ZERO repeateble evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god, and the believers themselves admit this
by failing to produce it!
it has ZERO verifiable evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god, and the believers themselves admit this
by failing to produce it!
All the evidence we do have counts strongly against it, but let's not
even concern ourselves with that for the moment, let's consider only
the evidence the *Bible* *itself* offers.
According to the Bible, the majority of the companions of Jesus were
simple illiterate folk. How could they have even begun to write a
gospel? lol! And why would such a crucial event in the history of
humankind (so we're expected to believe) have been left completely to
chance without *a* *single* *written* *record* from its supposed
founder? I say supposed, because Jesus is not actually the founder of
Christianity. Nope - that was Paul (who himself may be fiction) -
more on that later.
The book attributed to 'Mark' is generally agreed upon as being the
earliest gospel written (although it is far from the earliest NT book
written). The problem is that there's no evidence that anyone called
'Mark', or anyone who had personal experience of the purported events,
actually wrote it. In short, it's a lie before we even start reading
it!
And for the earliest book on the topic, Mark offers *no* account of
any virgin birth or visitation by angels! Not a single word! That
part of the myth was concocted later.
And what about the death and resurrection? Again,the earliest book
says *not* *a* *word*. The original Mark - that is, the earliest
manuscript that we have - ends not at Mark 16: 20, but here:
"And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they
trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for
they were afraid." Mark 16:8.
Not a *single* *word* about anyone being resurrected - just some guy
sitting there *telling* them there was a resurrection. That patent
fiction was concocted later and added in. My favorite theory is that
the guy sitting there was an atheist having some fun with the
fundies. An atheist started the Christ myth! lol!
In short, the entirety of Christianity - the whole Christian message
of virgin birth and resurrection - was never a part of the first
gospel. Never.
There is good evidence that the manuscript was *deliberately* changed
for the very purpose of lying:
"Revision and editorial error may also contribute. Most differences
are trivial but Mark 1:41, where the leper approached Jesus begging to
be healed, is significant. Early (Western) manuscripts say that Jesus
became angry with the leper while later (Byzantine) versions indicate
that Jesus showed compassion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
A deliberate lie in the gospel.
And what of that virgin birth? It never was a virgin birth. The
story was plagiarized from Isaiah. Only Matthew and Luke, evidently
using the same lie, claim this. Paul, who writes far earlier than
*any* of the gospelers, makes no such claim.
"Matthew, writing in Greek about the virgin birth of Jesus, quotes the
Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word
"παρθένος" (parthenos, virgin), while the original Hebrew text has
"עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried,
betrothed，or newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed
Abijah, daughter of Zechariah."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
In short, Matthew was at best clueless, at worst a deliberate liar.
And we're supposed to believe his "good news"?! lol!
If the Theory of Evolution was really as weak as this nativity and
resurrection bullshit - and it most certainly is not - then the
creationists would rightly have a field day with it, yet they swallow
all of these religious lies without so much as a hiccup. They're
hypocrites, every last one of them.
Here's how "Luke" begins his gospel: "Forasmuch as many have taken in
hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are
most surely believed among us,"
Note that there is no suggestion that it actually happened here.
There is only "belief", but more importantly here is the assertion
that he makes that many people have told stories about it. So what
happened to the other fables? They were systematically hunted down
and *destroyed* by a church intent upon making up its own fable,
controlling that fable, and destroying all evidence which would show
that fable to be a lie. They failed.
How the the conspiracy theorists and cover-up merchants (theists
almost every one) *never* talk about this - the most massive cover-up
of the truth in human history?! The truth was known back then and it
was deliberately hidden until all we have today is fiction.
But let's stick with the Bible itself. That's the only text we need
to show what a confection of lies and deceit the stories are.
So on the one hand we have the supposed eye witnesses - those who were
actually, so we're expected to believe, companions of this Messiah,
and then we have Paul, who never met Jesus, who wrote before *any* of
the gospelers, but who wrote *nothing* about virgin births and bodily
resurrections - who wrote nothing about Jesus as a person. Even when
quoting Jesus would have helped his case, Paul *never* *does* *so*.
In short, to the earliest writer of any of the NT manuscripts, Jesus
was already fiction.
Worse than that, Paul invented his own Christianity which had
*nothing* *whatsoever* to do with what the Messiah himself had
purportedly taught, and then he wrenched the embryonic Christian
church *away* from those Messianic followers and companions, and re-
made it into what Christians practice today!
Today what Christians do has *nothing* *whatsoever* to do with any
Jesus! It's all Paul.
Jesus was a Jew. His religion was Judaism - the very people and the
very religion which all-too-many of today's Christians deride and
reject.
That's how far the mighty have fallen. That's how deluded Christians
are. That's the real Christmas message.
Budikka
0 new messages