₦airaland Forum

THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD Originally in the Syro-Chaldee or Samaritan language, Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord, which predated the canonical gospels by decades, represents the basic gospel narrative, minus key elements that demonstrate the conspiracy. Although much the same as the later Gospel of Luke, Marcion’s gospel was Gnostic, non- historical, and did not make Jesus a Jewish man, i.e., he was not born in Bethlehem and was not from Nazareth, which did not even exist at the time. In Marcion’s gospel there is no childhood history, as Marcion’s Jesus was not born but “came down at Capernaum,” i.e., appeared, in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” the very sentence used in Luke to “prove” Jesus’s historicity. Marcion’s original, nonhistoricizing and non-Judaizing New Testament was a thorn in the side of the carnalizing conspirators, who were compelled to put a spin on the facts by claiming that the “heretic” had expurgated the gospel of Luke, removing the genealogies and other “historical”and “biographical” details, for example. Thus, Marcion was accused of “purging the letters of Paul and Luke of ‘Jewish traits,’” an allegation that served as a subterfuge to hide the fact that Marcion’s Jesus was indeed not a Jewish man who had incarnated a century before. However, as demonstrated by Waite and others, Marcion’s gospel was first, and Luke was created from it. Thus, it was not Marcion who had mutilated the texts but the historicizers who followed and added to his.

THE GOSPELS Although they are held up by true believers to be the “inspired” works of the apostles, the canonical gospels were forged at the end of the 2nd century, all four of them probably between 170-180, a date that just happens to correspond with the establishment of the orthodoxy and supremacy of the Roman Church. Despite the claims of apostolic authorship, the gospels were not mere translations of manuscripts written in Hebrew or Aramaic by Jewish apostles, because they were originally written in Greek. As Waite relates: It is noticeable that in every place in the gospels but one (and the total number is nearly a hundred) where Peter is mentioned, the Greek name “Petros” is given, which is supposed to be used by Jews as well as others. This would indicate that all the canonical gospels, Matthew included, are original Greek productions. Of these Greek texts and their pretended apostolic attribution, Wells states: a Galilean fisherman could not have written what Kümmel calls such “cultivated Greek,” with “many rhetorical devices,” and with all the Old Testament quotations and allusions deriving from the Greek version of these scriptures, not from the Hebrew original. Furthermore, as stated and as is also admitted by the writer of Luke when he says that there were many versions of “the narrative,” there were numerous gospels in circulation prior to the composition of his gospel. In fact, of the dozens of gospels that existed during the first centuries of the Christian era, several once considered canonical or genuine were later rejected as “apocryphal” or spurious, and vice versa. Out of these numerous gospels the canonical gospels were chosen by Church father and bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus (c. 120-c. 200), who claimed that the number four was based on the “four corners of the world.” In reality, this comment is Masonic, and these texts represent the four books of magic of the Egyptian Ritual, facts that provide hints as to where our quest is heading. According to some early Christians, the gospel of Matthew is the earliest, which is why it appears first in the canon. However, as noted, the gospels have been arranged in virtually every order, and scholars of the past few centuries have considered Mark to be the earliest, used by the writers/compilers of Matthew and Luke. Going against this trend, Waite evinced that Luke was first followed by Mark, John and Matthew. In fact, these gospels were written not from each other but from common source material, including the narrative, or Diegesis, as it is in the original Greek. The first gospel of the “narrative” type, in actuality, appears to have been the proto- Lukan text, the “Gospel of the Lord,” published in Rome by the Gnostic- Christian Marcion, as part of his “New Testament.” As Waite relates: The first New Testament that ever appeared, was compiled and published by Marcion. It was in the Greek language. It consisted of “The Gospel,” and “The Apostolicon.” No acts—no Revelation, and but one gospel. The Apostolicon comprised ten of Paul’s Epistles, as follows: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, except the 15th and 16th chapters, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians; arranged in the order as here named. This canon of the New Testament was prepared and published shortly after his arrival in Rome; probably about 145 A.D. Baring-Gould thinks he brought the gospel from Sinope. . . . [Marcion’s] gospel resembles the Gospel of Luke, but is much shorter. It is interesting to note that the two missing chapters of Romans are historicizing, whereas the rest of the epistle is not. Furthermore, the gospel referred to by Paul in this epistle and others has been termed the “Gospel of Paul,” presumed lost but in reality claimed by Marcion to be a book he found at Antioch, along with 10 “Pauline” epistles, and then edited, bringing it around 139-142 to Rome, where he translated it into both Greek and Latin.

The Epistles The various Pauline epistles contained in the New Testament form an important part of Christianity, yet these “earliest” of Christian texts never discuss a historical background of Jesus, even though Paul purportedly lived during and after Jesus’s advent and surely would have known about his master’s miraculous life. Instead, these letters deal with a spiritual construct found in various religions, sects, cults and mystery schools for hundreds to thousands of years prior to the Christian era. As Dujardin points out, the Pauline literature “does not refer to Pilate or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod or Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion, and that it also never makes any allusion to them; lastly, that it mentions absolutely none of the events of the Passion, either directly or by way of allusion." Mangasarian notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus’s purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus’s supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all of which would presumably be very important to Jesus’s followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to Paul. Mangasarian then understandably asks: Is it conceivable that a preacher of Jesus could go throughout the world to convert people to the teachings of Jesus, as Paul did, without ever quoting a single one of his sayings? Had Paul known that Jesus had preached a sermon, or formulated a prayer, or said many inspired things about the here and the hereafter, he could not have helped quoting, now and then, from the words of his master. If Christianity could have been established without a knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, why then, did Jesus come to teach, and why were his teachings preserved by divine inspiration?. . . If Paul knew of a miracle-working Jesus, one who could feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes, who could command the grave to open, who could cast out devils, and cleanse the land of the foulest disease of leprosy, who could, and did, perform many other wonderful works to convince the unbelieving generation of his divinity—is it conceivable that either intentionally or inadvertently he would have never once referred to them in all his preaching?. . . The position, then, that there is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels which is quoted by Paul in his many epistles is unassailable, and certainly fatal to the historicity of the gospel Jesus. In fact, even though the “Lord’s Prayer” is clearly spelled out in the gospels as being given directly from Jesus’s mouth, Paul expresses that he does not know how to pray. Paul’s Jesus is also very different from that of the gospels. As Wells says: . . . these epistles are not merely astoundingly silent about the historical Jesus, but also that the Jesus of Paul’s letters (the earliest of the NT epistles and hence the earliest extant Christian documents) is in some respects incompatible with the Jesus of the gospels; that neither Paul, nor those of his Christian predecessors whose views he assimilates into his letters, nor the Christian teachers he attacks in them, are concerned with such a person. . . So it appears that Paul, even though he speaks of “the gospel,” had never heard of the canonical gospels or even an orally transmitted life of Christ. The few “historical” references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries, as are the epistles themselves, not having been written by the Pharisee/ Roman “Paul” at all, as related by Wheless: The entire “Pauline group” is the same forged class . . . says E.B. [Encyclopedia Biblica] . . . “With respect to the canonical Pauline Epistles, . . . . there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or eight, nor yet even the four so long ‘universally’ regarded as unassailable. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false-writings, forgeries). They are thus all uninspired anonymous church forgeries for Christ’s sweet sake! In The Myth of the Historical Jesus, Hayyim ben Yehoshua evinces that the orthodox dates of the Pauline epistles (c. 49-70) cannot be maintained, also introducing one of the most important individuals in the formation of Christianity, the Gnostic-Christian “heretic” Marcion of Pontus (c. 100-160), a well-educated “man of letters” who entered the brotherhood and basically took the reins of the fledgling Gnostic- Christian movement: We now turn to the epistles supposedly written by Paul. The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy warns against the Marcionist work known as the Antithesis. Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome in c. 144 C.E. and the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy was written shortly afterwards. Thus we again have a clear case of pseudepigraphy. The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and the Epistle of Paul to Titus were written by the same author and date to about the same period. These three epistles are known as the “pastoral epistles.” The ten remaining “non-pastoral” epistles written in the name of Paul, were known to Marcion by c. 140 C.E. Some of them were not written in Paul’s name alone but are in the form of letters written by Paul in collaboration with various friends such as Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas. . . . The non-canonical First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written c. 125 C.E.) uses the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians as a source and so we can narrow down the date for that epistle to c. 100-125 C.E. However, we are left with the conclusion that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic. (The semi-mythical Paul was supposed to have died during the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 CE.) Some of the Pauline epistles appear to have been altered and edited numerous times before reaching their modern forms. . We may thus conclude that they provide no historical evidence of Jesus. It is clear that the epistles do not demonstrate a historical Jesus and are not as early as they are pretended to be, written or edited by a number of hands over several decades during the second century, such that the “historical” Jesus apparently was not even known at that late point. As is also evidenced, these texts were further mutilated over the centuries.

THE HOLY FORGERY MILL Ho From the very beginning of our quest to unravel the Christ conspiracy, we encounter suspicious territory, as we look back in time and discover that the real foundation of Christianity appears nothing like the image provided by the clergy and mainstream authorities. Indeed, far more rosy and cheerful than the reality is the picture painted by the vested interests as to the origins of the Christian religion: To wit, a miracle- making founder and pious, inspired apostles who faithfully and infallibly recorded his words and deeds shortly after his advent, and then went about promulgating the faith with great gusto and success in “saving souls.” Contrary to this popular delusion, the reality is that, in addition to the enormous amount of bloodshed which accompanied its foundation, Christianity’s history is rife with forgery and fraud. So rampant is this treachery and chicanery that any serious researcher must immediately begin to wonder about the story itself. In truth, the Christian tale has always been as difficult to swallow as the myths and fables of other cultures; yet countless people have been able to overlook the rational mind and to willingly believe it, even though they may equally as easily dismiss the nearly identical stories of these other cultures. Indeed, the story of Jesus as presented in the gospels, mass of impossibilities and contradictions that it is, has been so difficult to believe that even the fanatic Christian “doctor” and saint, Augustine (354-430), admitted, “I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so. Nevertheless, the “monumentally superstitious and credulous Child of Faith” Augustine must not have been too resistant, because he already accepted “as historic truth the fabulous founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus, their virgin-birth by the god Mars, and their nursing by the she-wolf . . .” Apparently unable to convince himself rationally of the validity of his faith, early Church father Tertullian (c. 160-200) made the notorious statement, “Credo quia incredibilis est—I believe because it is unbelievable.” An “ex-Pagan,” Tertullian vehemently and irrationally defended his new faith, considered fabricated by other Pagans, by acknowledging that Christianity was “a shameful thing” and “monstrously absurd”: . . . I maintain that the Son of God was born; why am I not ashamed of maintaining such a thing? Why! but because it is itself a shameful thing. I maintain that the Son of God died: well, that is wholly credible because it is monstrously absurd. I maintain that after having been buried, he rose again: and that I take to be absolutely true, because it was manifestly impossible. In addition to confessions of incredulity by Pagans and Christians alike, we also encounter repeated accusations and admissions of forgery and fraud. While the masses are led to believe that the Christian religion was founded by a historical wonderworker and his devoted eyewitnesses who accurately wrote down the events of his life and ministry in marvelous books that became “God’s Word,” the reality is that none of the gospels was written by its purported author and, indeed, no mention of any New Testament text can be found in writings prior to the beginning of the second century of the Common Era (“CE”), long after the purported events. These “holy” books, then, so revered by devotees, turn out to be spurious, and since it is in them that we find the story of Christ, we must be doubtful as to its validity as well. Regarding the canonical gospels, Wheless states: The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates. . . . As said by the great critic, Salomon Reinach, “With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors.” Bronson Keeler, in A Short History of the Bible, concurs: They are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them. In The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read, John Remsburg elucidates: The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. Rev. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him (Justin)¾do not occur once in all his writings.” And Waite says: At the very threshold of the subject, we are met by the fact, that nowhere in all the writings of Justin, does he once so much as mention any of these gospels. Nor does he mention either of their supposed authors, except John. Once his name occurs; not, however, as the author of a gospel, but in such a connection as raises a very strong presumption that Justin knew of no gospel of John the Apostle. Waite further states: No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the New Testament. . . . No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting, or engraving, no sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of those gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century. Even the exploration of the Christian catacombs failed to bring to light any evidence of that character. . . . The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation of them into other languages, earlier than the third century. In The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Barbara Walker relates: The discovery that the Gospels were forged, centuries later than the events they described, is still not widely known even though the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, “The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning . . . has no foundation in history.” No extant manuscript can be dated earlier than the 4th century A.D.; most were written even later. The oldest manuscripts contradict one another, as also do even the present canon of synoptic Gospels. In fact, as Waite says, “Nearly every thing written concerning the gospels to the year 325, and all the copies of the gospels themselves to the same period, are lost or destroyed. ”The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea and the “retouching” of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included “revision” of the Church fathers’ works,l catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these “documents” were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the “Lord and Savior,” whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would appear to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the “infallible Word of God” was “corrected” again by a variety of church officials. In addition to these major “revisions” have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning. It has never been only nonbelieving detractors who have made such allegations of falsification and deceit by the biblical writers. Indeed, those individuals who concocted some of the hundreds of “alternative” gospels and epistles being circulated during the first several centuries even admitted that they forged the texts. Of these numerous manuscripts, the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges, as quoted by Wheless: Enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended gospels full of romantic fables, and fantastic and striking details; their fabrications were eagerly read and accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no motive other than that of a PIOUS FRAUD. Forgery during the first centuries of the Church’s existence was thus admittedly rampant, so common in fact that this phrase, “pious fraud,” was coined to describe it. Furthermore, while admitting that the Catholics were engaged in fraud, the Catholic Encyclopedia is also implying that the Gnostics were truthful in regard to the fictitious and allegorical nature of their texts. Regarding this Catholic habit of fraud, Mangasarian states in The Truth about Jesus: The church historian, Mosheim, writes that, “The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraud.” . . . Again, he says: “The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy.” Will not some believer tell us why forgery and fraud were necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus. . . . Another historian, Milman, writes that, “Pious fraud was admitted and avowed by the early missionaries of Jesus.” “It was an age of literary frauds,” writes Bishop Ellicott, speaking of the times immediately following the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. Giles declares that, “There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to deceive.” And it is the opinion of Dr. Robertson Smith that, “There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views.” So fundamental to “the faith” was fraud that Wheless remarked: The clerical confessions of lies and frauds in the ponderous volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia alone suffice . . . to wreck the Church and to destroy utterly the Christian religion. . . . The Church exists mostly for wealth and self- aggrandizement; to quit paying money to the priests would kill the whole scheme in a couple of years. This is the sovereign remedy. According to Christian father and Church historian Eusebius (260?-340?), Bishop of Corinth Dionysius lashed out against forgers who had mutilated not only his letters but the gospels themselves: When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. . . . Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts. These statements by Dionysius imply that the letters and gospels were mutilated by his “fellow-Christians” themselves, as the letters were presumably in their possession, unless they were hijacked along the way by some other “devil’s apostles,” and as the “the word of the Lord” certainly was in the possession of Christians and no others. In addition, a number of the fathers, such as Eusebius himself, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who regularly wrote their own fictions of what “the Lord” said and did during “his” alleged sojourn upon the earth. In one of his works, Eusebius provides a handy chapter entitled: “How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.” Of Eusebius, Waite writes, “Not only the most unblushing falsehoods, but literary forgeries of the vilest character, darken the pages of his apologetic and historical writings.” Wheless also calls Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Eusebius “three luminous liars.” Keeler states, “The early Christian fathers were extremely ignorant and superstitious; and they were singularly incompetent to deal with the supernatural.” Larson concludes that many early bishops “like Jerome, Antony, and St. Martin, were definitely psychotic. In fact, there was scarcely a single Father in the ancient Church who was not tainted with heresy, mental aberration, or moral enormity.” Thus, deceiving, mentally ill individuals basically constitute the genesis Christianity. Of their products, Wheless further remarks: If the pious Christians, confessedly, committed so many and so extensive forgeries and frauds to adapt these popular Jewish fairy-tales of their God and holy Worthies to the new Christian Jesus and his Apostles, we need feel no surprise when we discover these same Christians forging outright new wonder-tales of their Christ under the fiction of the most noted Christian names and in the guise of inspired Gospels, Epistles, Acts and Apocalypses. . . . He continues: Half a hundred of false and forged Apostolic “Gospels of Jesus Christ,” together with more numerous other “Scripture” forgeries, was the output, so far as known now, of the lying pens of the pious Christians of the first two centuries of the Christian “Age of Apocryphal Literature” Wheless also reports the Protestant Encyclopedia Biblica as stating, “Almost every one of the Apostles had a Gospel fathered upon him by one early sect or another.” Doane relates the words of Dr. Conyers Middleton on the subject of biblical forgery: There never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history, in which so many rank heresies were publicly professed, nor in which so many spurious books were forged and published by the Christians, under the names of Christ, and the Apostles, and the Apostolic writers, as in those primitive ages. Several of these forged books are frequently cited and applied to the defense of Christianity, by the most eminent fathers of the same ages, as true and genuine pieces. Wheless demonstrates how low the fathers and doctors of texts were willing to stoop: . . . If the Gospel tales were true, why should God need pious lies to give them credit? Lies and forgeries are only needed to bolster up falsehood: “Nothing stands in need of lying but a lie.” But Jesus Christ must needs be propagated by lies upon lies; and what better proof of his actuality than to exhibit letters written by him in his own handwriting? The “Little Liars of the Lord” were equal to the forgery of the signature of their God—false letters in his name, as above cited from that exhaustless mine of clerical falsities, the Catholic Encyclopedia [CE]. Indeed, Christian tradition pretends that Christ was extremely renowned evenduring his own time, having exchanged correspondence with King Abgar of Syria, who was most pleased to have the Christian savior take refuge in his country.

THE MYTHISCIST This missing core to the onion has been recognized by many individuals over the centuries who have thus been unable to accept the historical nature of Jesus Christ, because not only is there no proof of his existence but virtually all evidence points to him being a mythological character. As stated, this “Mythicist School” began to flourish starting a few hundred years ago, propelled by archaeological and linguistical discoveries and studies, as well as by the reduction of the Church’s power and vicious persecution of its critics. This group has consisted of a number of erudite and daring individuals who have overcome the conditioning of their culture to peer closely and with clear eyes into the murky origins of the Christian faith. Massey elucidates the mythicists’ perspective: The general assumption concerning the canonical gospels is that the historic element was the kernel of the whole, and that the fables accreted round it; whereas the mythos, being pre-extant, proves the core of the matter was mythical, and it follows that the history is incremental. . . . It was the human history that accreted round the divinity, and not a human being who became divine. While the mythicist school has only made real inroads in the past couple of centuries, and even though its brilliant work and insight have been ignored by mainstream “experts” in both the believing and evemerist camps, the mythicist arguments have been built upon a long line of Bible criticism. Indeed, this controversy has existed from the very beginning as is evidenced by the writings of the Church fathers themselves, i.e., those who founded the Christian Church, who revealed that they were constantly forced by the “Pagan” intelligentsia to defend what the non- Christians and other Christians (“heretics”) alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says in The Diegesis, “And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied.” In fact, as Taylor also states: Those who denied the humanity of Christ were the first class of professing Christians, and not only first in order of time, but in dignity of character, in intelligence, and in moral influence. . . . The deniers of the humanity of Christ, or,in a word, professing Christians, who denied that any such man as Jesus Christ ever existed at all, but who took the name Jesus Christ to signify only an abstraction, or prosopopoeia, the principle of Reason personified; and who understood the whole gospel story to be a sublime allegory . . . these were the first, and (it is not dishonour to Christianity to pronounce them) the best and most rational Christians. Again, this denial of Christ in the flesh is found numerous times in the writings of the day, including the New Testament itself, yet it is ignored by historicizers, believers and evemerists alike. Indeed, in their “exhaustive” research into this all-important subject, historicizers have either wilfully and unreasonably ignored the great minds of the mythicist school or have never come across them. If we assume that the historicizers’ disregard of these scholars is deliberate, we can onlyconclude that it is because the mythicists’

THE EVEMERISTS It is because of such irrational beliefs and prejudicial demands that many people have rejected Christian claims as being incredible and unappealing. Nevertheless, numerous such dissidents have maintained that behind the fabulous fairytales found in the gospels there was a historical Jesus Christ somewhere, an opinion usually based on the fact that it is commonly held, not because its proponents have studied the matter or seen clear evidence to that effect. This “meme” or mental programming of a historical Jesus has been pounded into the heads of billions of people for nearly 2,000 years, such that it is assumed a priori by many, including “scholars” who have put forth an array of clearly speculative hypotheses hung on highly tenuous threads regarding the “life of Jesus.” Such speculators often claim that a historical Jewish master named Jesus was deified or “evemerized” by his zealous followers, who added to his mundane “history” a plethora of supernatural qualities and aspects widely found in more ancient myths and mystery religions. This school of thought called “ Evemerism” or “Euhemerism,” is named after Evemeras, or Euhemeros, a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BCE who developed the idea that, rather than being mythical creatures, as was accepted by the reigning intellectuals, the gods of old were in fact historical characters, kings, emperors and heroes whose exploits were later deified. Of these various evemerist “biographies,” the most popular are that Jesus was a compassionate teacher who irritated the Romans with his goodness, or a political rebel who annoyed the Romans with his incitement of discord, for which he was executed. Wells omments upon the theory du jour: As political activism is today à la mode, it is widely felt that a revolutionary Jesus is more “relevant” than the Jesus of the nineteenth century liberal theologians who “went about doing good” (Acts, 10:38). Both these Jesuses simply reflect what in each case the commentators value most highly rather than the burden of the texts. If Jesus had been politically troublesome, his supporters would have been arrested with him. But there is no suggestion of this in any of the gospels. He further states: There are . . . three obvious difficulties against the supposition that a historical Jesus was actually executed as a rebel: (i) All Christian documents earlier than the gospels portray him in a way hardly compatible with the view that he was a political agitator. . . (ii) If his activities had been primarily political, and the evangelists were not interested in—or deemed it inexpedient to mention—his politics, then what was the motive for their strong interest in him? How did they come to suppose that a rebel, whose revolutionary views they tried to suppress in their gospels, was the universal saviour? (iii) If such an episode as the cleansing of the temple was not a religious act (as the gospels allege) but an armed attempt to capture the building and to precipitate a general insurrection, then why does Josephus say nothing of it? As Trocmé has observed . . . a military attack on the temple would not have been ignored by this writer who was so concerned to show the dangers of revolt and violence. Josephus’ silence is corroborated by the positive affirmation of Tacitus that there was no disturbance in Palestine under Tiberius (AD 14-37), whereas the preceding and following reigns were characterized by rebellion and unrest there . . . Of these various “lives of Jesus,” Wells also says: It is now customary to dismiss with contempt many nineteenth-century lives of Jesus on the grounds that their authors simply found in him all the qualities which they themselves considered estimable. But the wide circulation today of books which portray him as a rebel seems yet another illustration of the same phenomenon. Evemerist scholar Shaye Cohen, professor of Judaic and Religion Studies at Brown University, admits the desperate situation of trying to find this “historical” reformer/rebel under the accreted layers of miracles: Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in Jesus that which they want to find, be it rationalist, liberal Christianity of the 19th century, be it apocalyptic miracle workers in the 20th, be it revolutionaries, or be it whatever it is that they’re looking for, scholars have been able to find in Jesus almost anything that they want to find. Even in our own age scholars are still doing this. People are still trying to figure out the authentic sayings of Jesus. . ., all our middle class liberal Protestant scholars. . . will take a vote and decide what Jesus should have said, or might have said. And no doubt their votes reflect their own deep-seated, very sincere, very authentic Christian values, which I don’t gainsay for a moment. But their product is, of course, bedeviled by the problem that we are unable to have any secure criteria by which to distinguish the real from the mythic or what we want to be so from what actually was so. . . . These various theories in the end constitute wheel-spinning in a futile effort to rescue historicity, any historicity, in the gospel tale. Because of the dearth of personality in the gospels and the irrationality of the tale, historicizers must imbue the character with their own personalities and interpretations of reality, such as: “When Jesus said, ‘Blessed are the poor,’ he surely didn’t mean that poverty is a blessing but that those who lived with povert

[/quote]hence forth I shall be periodically posting some revealing excerpt from The Christ Conspiracy book that demonstratively proved with historical facts and evidence that Christ never realy existed, he was a myth created by the roman church. Enjoy![quote author=rhymz]THE BIBLE PROPHECY Many people believe that the biblical tale of Jesus must be true because the Bible itself predicted his advent and because so many other Old Testament “prophecies” had come true, demonstrating that the book was indeed “God’s word.” First of all, much of the biblical “prophecy” was written after the fact, with merely an appearance of prophecy. Secondly, the book has served as a blueprint, such that rulers have deliberately followed to some degree its so-called prophecies, thus appearing to bring them to fulfillment. Thirdly, very few if any “prophecies,” particularly of the supernatural kind, have indeed come true. Fourthly, biblical interpreters claim that records of events centuries in the past somehow refer to the future. As concerns purported prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, Wells says: "Nearly all New Testament authors twist and torture the most unhelpful Old Testament passages into prophecies concerning Christianity". Who, ignorant of Mt. 2:16-9, could suppose that Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel weeping for her children) referred to Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents? To demonstrate that their Messiah was predicted, Christians have also grabbed onto the brief reference made at Psalms 2 to “the Lord and his Anointed,” a word that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, the Septuagint, is “Christos.” In fact, the Septuagint, allegedly translated and redacted during the second and third centuries BCE at Alexandria, Egypt, contains the word “Christos” at least 40 times. This title “Christos” or “anointed,” however, referred only to an Israelite king or priest, not a superhuman savior. This Christian defense, in fact, proves that there were other Christs long before Jesus, including David, Zadok and Cyrus. The title “Christ” or “Anointed” (“Mashiah”) was in reality held by all kings of Israel, as well as being “so commonly assumed by all sorts of impostors, conjurers, and pretenders to supernatural communications, that the very claim to it is in the gospel itself considered as an indication of imposture . As to the reliability of both Old and New Testaments, Hilton Hotema declared, “Not one line of the Bible has a known author, and but few incidents of it are corroborated by other testimony. Thus, Christianity is based upon a false proposition, and, without the inspired authorship of apostles under an infallible god, the Church is left with little upon which to base its claims. Regarding this state of affairs, Wheless declared: The Gentile Church of Christ has therefore no divine sanction; was never contemplated nor created by Jesus Christ. The Christian Church is thus founded on a forgery of pretended words of the pretended Christ.

[/quote]hence forth I shall be periodically posting some revealing excerpt from The Christ Conspiracy book that demonstratively proved with historical facts and evidence that Christ never realy existed, he was a myth created by the roman church. Enjoy![quote author=rhymz]THE BIBLE PROPHECY Many people believe that the biblical tale of Jesus must be true because the Bible itself predicted his advent and because so many other Old Testament “prophecies” had come true, demonstrating that the book was indeed “God’s word.” First of all, much of the biblical “prophecy” was written after the fact, with merely an appearance of prophecy. Secondly, the book has served as a blueprint, such that rulers have deliberately followed to some degree its so-called prophecies, thus appearing to bring them to fulfillment. Thirdly, very few if any “prophecies,” particularly of the supernatural kind, have indeed come true. Fourthly, biblical interpreters claim that records of events centuries in the past somehow refer to the future. As concerns purported prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, Wells says: "Nearly all New Testament authors twist and torture the most unhelpful Old Testament passages into prophecies concerning Christianity". Who, ignorant of Mt. 2:16-9, could suppose that Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel weeping for her children) referred to Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents? To demonstrate that their Messiah was predicted, Christians have also grabbed onto the brief reference made at Psalms 2 to “the Lord and his Anointed,” a word that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, the Septuagint, is “Christos.” In fact, the Septuagint, allegedly translated and redacted during the second and third centuries BCE at Alexandria, Egypt, contains the word “Christos” at least 40 times. This title “Christos” or “anointed,” however, referred only to an Israelite king or priest, not a superhuman savior. This Christian defense, in fact, proves that there were other Christs long before Jesus, including David, Zadok and Cyrus. The title “Christ” or “Anointed” (“Mashiah”) was in reality held by all kings of Israel, as well as being “so commonly assumed by all sorts of impostors, conjurers, and pretenders to supernatural communications, that the very claim to it is in the gospel itself considered as an indication of imposture . As to the reliability of both Old and New Testaments, Hilton Hotema declared, “Not one line of the Bible has a known author, and but few incidents of it are corroborated by other testimony. Thus, Christianity is based upon a false proposition, and, without the inspired authorship of apostles under an infallible god, the Church is left with little upon which to base its claims. Regarding this state of affairs, Wheless declared: The Gentile Church of Christ has therefore no divine sanction; was never contemplated nor created by Jesus Christ. The Christian Church is thus founded on a forgery of pretended words of the pretended Christ.

dabriggs: Wonderful analogy. That is why from place to place on earth there are diverse religions christianity inclusive. Just as I have asked, if the muslim God comes will he punish me in fiery hell for being a christian? And if the christian God comes will he punish all muslims (babies,infants,children,adults etc) for being muslims. He allowed them to be born into the muslim family. And this analogy can go on if we start assuming that hunduism, bhudism, or shintoism were the true religions just to name a few, will they punish others forever in Hell for been born and raised under different beliefs,religions and regions of the world? A fault not theirs? Hmmm.

Logic and philosphy. Love it!

I used thesame logic to explain to one catholic church fanatic in the family house I stayed when I was serving in Sokoto, all he could say was that I should leave them to be judged when their time comes. I told him that the bible is absolute in the way it presents it presents its own truth that if followed to the letters christians will be so intolerant of dissident religious opinion and rights to worship. It shows that after all said and done, the bible is just as falible and unbelievably exaggerated to the point that it defiles common sense.
For instance, I asked him to explain John 3:16? How can God claim to love the world it is claimed he created and then send his only begotten son Jesus to die for it. What exactly was the significance of Jesus coming to die for mankind when God could easily redeem it or do what he likes without sending his only son to be murdered by thesame people it is claimed jesus came to die for just to save them from the wrath of his father, God. Is God an egomaniac that needs his son Christ to die just so he can be appeased or something or is he so powerless that he can make man do the right thing? The whole Jesus died on the cross thing is a copycat fairy tale that has long been the religious traditional believes of pagan gods who existed before romans and Paul invented christianity. Imagine if Africa was not colonized by the europeans, we wont even be having this whiteman Jesus conversation, amadioha, sango and so on still would have been our religious main stay. So much for mind programming and psychological propaganda.

NEROSKY: Yea, mtn is unlimited,
dunno, if eti is,
anyway, am using airtel 1 BB plan 4 symbian..very enjoyable...

o boy e be like say me and you na thesame o...lol
i am using the airtel 1200 naira 1gb BB plan on my symbian phone and i dey enjoy am die....all u need do na send 440 to BSM and you get the 4cking BB msg that u ve been credited with 1gb bb bundle plan...lol...i even use it on my lappy sometimes but that one dey gulp mb too much..lol

obadiah777: YOU ARE ALWAYS REGURGITATING NONSENSE. NOW MAKE LIKE A GOOD BOY AND DROP THE NAME YOU CALL HIM OR KEEP IT MOVING

you know when it comes to DUMBOs like you, I treat you like a slowpoke, an !diot worse than a slowpoke.
I have, in several occassion on NL schooled you about your own bible just to show you how steeewpid you are, you don't even know what is your bible and you dare want to mince words with people who are way more intellectually superior and have better life experience than you? You should be thankful for the privileges NL affords an ignoramus like you to even make attempts to argue with people you can't dare talk to in real life cos your very limited I.Q will fail you.
Anyway, enjoy the privileges, it is one of the very well known evidence of the good work of science, something Jesus can't seem to understand.

As far as common sense prevails, using the complex design of an entity to prove that there is prolly a maker that came up with such design is limitless because one can also direct thesame argument to the complexities of the supreme maker entity himself. Doing so will show the folliness of such premise of argument. The fact God can not be proven to exists puts a very big dent to the claims of human religion of an existent supreme entity controlling things from nowhere above.
The best explanation to human existence is still the empirical evidence of science, it does not rest its argument or explanation on any dogmatic belief system or tradition that seeks to mystically define Who is god and what his characteristics are. Science is based on evidence and observation not dogma. So it is understandable if there are a million names for this human mental creation called God, afterall, it is neither here nor there.

dabriggs: ^^^
Really.

As complex as a car is, doesnt it have a maker?
So as more complex as the human is why wouldn't a human have a maker?

Just wondering.

so if I were to go by your logic, even God prolly has a maker too. Abi?

NEROSKY: Wetin concern us 4 dat dull phone
blackburial sucks... My fwend jst bought N8 n am really jealous of em, am currently using E72,mehn u need to see d battery durability(duracel),16 million colour picture, HD GAMES(high definition), fast email alert, whatsapp(4 pinging) 2go ing,facebooking,twitting n many more can run at once,omg! ...Nokia rocks , enough multi tasking.ú should open all dis apps n see if u don't remove D battery+++ NB_THIS COME ARE FOR E72 only... Then if u cum acroz N8 #1 you wil zoom seun in his office wif 12 mp (41 mp)

I can Understand your Nokia praises cos as I write, I do it with my Nokia E5. There is hardly anything a blackberry phone can do that the Nokia E-series phones can not do, let alone the ones with improved ram size, camera quality, screen resolution way better battery life, ability to get push-up mails,Way faster internet connection than most blackberry phones and better operating software platforms. The advent of whatsapp just put a death stamp on the nokia phone as the software has way better connection abilities than The blackberry BBM, it is cross-platform softy that other smarter phones like the andriods, iphones, samsung and even the Blackberry phones can use without the BBM hot air. RIM needs to step up its game or risk dying off, all that 10min booting is so 90s abeg, no amount of retail store in Naija will solve their problems if they refuse to evolve and make their phones more user friendly and smarter phone to use than capittalize on asthetics and luxury that will pale off with time in the face of changing technology. Nigerians that buy BB most of the times buy the phone for status symbol and not functionality, if they continue to sell their phone on the basis of cosmetics, them go fade fast as they seem to be doing now.

Like seriously, an enhanced battery life modification announcement would have done them way more good than announcing a 4ucking retail sale outlet that has been existing without any serious notice besides that black coloured building they erected in computer village. BB is only attractive to Nigerians at 2nd hand value, cos honestly there's hardly any difference between a brand new BB and a fairly used one, so kini big deal?

Whatever the reactions of religious followers is over the misrepresentation of their idols are, I believe that it is high time that people stopped this deliberate provocations that bring out the beast in mankind. And also, religious fanatics, especially in the muslim world should learn to appropately register their anger without further worsening the issue through actions that make them seem insecure, thin-skinned, easily irritated and unneccessary combativeness. Afterall, if God is as powerful as often portrayed by religion, he will be the one to feel slighted take actions against people who mock him, not hide behind some Mohammed, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha and all these mythological entities to do his dirty job while he stands hands akimbo doing what he does best, watching and doing nothing.
Enough of this nonsense my religion is better or more tolerant than yours, or your mohammed is less tolerant than our Jesus BS that people like to indulge in. The bottom line is, the more these perpetrators get irrational reactions from religious faithfuls, they are further spurred to do even more provocative taunting and take more insulting actions. That is the price of freedom, everyone can't be forced to be reticent with their thoughts but everyone can choose to make them look silly by ignoring such thoughtless gestures.

Ekenthman: may God forgive u for u no not wot u do

oh come off it, you christian hypocrite.
Why are you so afraid to question the incoherent fairytales that you have been taught all your life. Is it because you were born into christianity and the europeand came with their Jesus story to twist the African mind? Tell me what physical proof you have or know of the existence of Christ besides the incoherent fairy tales in the new testament? Trust me you don't want me to go into that, else you will have reasons to doubt your irrational faith. I don't believe in the existence of the christian God, it is man made and thinks the way man wants him to think.

Billyonaire: Even Before Jesus, the Christ, People got crucified. And even after Jesus, the mode of execution continued. So what are these Bishops outraged about. Christianity should be more enlightening than Islam, although both are Asian Ideologies.

hahahahahahah. . . The whole christ being in crucified story, did it realy happen sef? Is there any physical evidence that he was crucified or even existed sef

I will like to quote James Baldwin;
“If the concept of God has any validity or any use, it can only be to make us larger, freer, and more loving. If God cannot do this, then it is time we got rid of Him.”
To be honest, I got rid of him a long time ago when I discovered that the whole concept of some entity residing nowhere up was man's perfect invention to answer questions he could not logically explain. God is a man-made mental creation, a figmentation of a conditioned mind. Life events have taught us over and over again that if there is any God in existence, it is the one people like Oyedepo and his ilks created to decieve, manipulate and control people en mass into submission and obidience.
The kind of God whose justice system is so flawed that the likes of Oyedepo have a feel time swindling their fellow humans without fear of any repacussions. The kind of God whose egomaniac story of sending his only begotten son to be murdered by humans -whom it is claimed have wronged him- just so his wrath towards the human race is appeased, is appalling and beats common sense. What kind of entity demand for the death of his son just for him to be appeased, of course the one created by the human mind and myth. At times I sit back in thought of the injustices meted out to innocent people who willingly would have wanted to serve this entity if realy he exists, and all I say to myself is, why are people not asking logical questions as to the real concept of the entity called God. Why is he so powerless when he should be powerful and needlessly powerful when he should show power restraints. How many of us have been able to genuinely come to terms with our beliefs after asking these following questions about the person of god:
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Until we can genuinely ask and make effort to get answers from these "MOGs" milking their flocks dry, they will never stop to take the likes of stagga, chiefpriest and the other faithful slowpokes for granted, they will continue to commit pius fraud without fear and go scot free. Unfortunately, they understand very well the premise of my argument, Oyedepo knows the only God that exists is the one he creates and recreates depending on the prevalent situation and have been kept alive by his very docile congregation who has been mind programmed not to think but just accept and believe.

mistypiper: God..i want to be rich like pastor oyedepo.

dream on. .lol. .Jesus is laughing at your joke, he too prolly wishes he was as wish and cunning like Oledepo!

Chiefpriest: My dear I dont live in owerri but find out from pple in lagos,i just prayed for you my son God of Oyedepo will bless u and enrich your life.[color=#990000][/color]

you sound like a dishonest lunatic who will lie and twist the fact just to win an argument. Those buses are not free go figure! They only subsidize the cost by hiring it and collecting less but they are nowhere near free. Again, give me proof where it is claimed that Oledepo directly gave any student a scholarship or has such a program announced in church for willing and intelligent student members to take advantage of. He does not have anything like that, there are many students in his church looking for admision, writing the Jamb exam whose parents are laden with financial debts that can be touched by such gestures but you daddy GO is too business minded to consider them, he would rather business be treated as business and church as church.
And lastly, 4ck off with your prayers, I don't need any help from Oyedepo's gods, I am very comfortable where I am, he should direct the powers of his gods towards the needy in the societ and brainless members like yourself whose ability to think has been damaged by Oledopd.

mistypiper: God..i want to be rich like pastor oyedepo.

dream on. .lol. .Jesus is laughing at your joke, he too prolly wishes he was as wish and cunning like Oledepo!

ehie: they call it the stolckhom syndrome,where kidnapee falls in love with kidnaper

hahahahhahah. . Thats a nice one. Reminds me of Rev Jim Jones and the 900 believers whose lives he wasted in a Guyana Jungle. They loved him even as they drank the kool aid. . . .lol

Chiefpriest: Abi oh.Practically every student in land mark university is on scholarship,most cu student are on scholarship,every bonafide child of d members enjoys busary frm sec sch to university,church menbers go to church with free bus the church provide soft loan interst Free to menbers and we dont do all these on tv never.[color=#990000][/color]

Make Satan use im pr!ick dance etigi inside your yansh for lying with your foul mouth. Which winners mwmbers dey enter bus free, abi you dey craze for head ni? When I was in school I attended a couple of winners services in owerri, their buses arrive at a designated bus-stop to carry us to their church in town then, we usually pay 80naira each for us to be taken to and fro. Na im u wan lie here say na free, idiota. And can you please point to one person or anywhere on the website of CU where the names of students that have benefited from any scholarship is posted abi na make you dey run ur dirty mouth anyhow. I bet the criteria for getting an imaginary scholarship is licking daddy Oledepo's ballz during service, so much for propaganda and pius fraud.

Chiefpriest: Abi oh.Practically every student in land mark university is on scholarship,most cu student are on scholarship,every bonafide child of d members enjoys busary frm sec sch to university,church menbers go to church with free bus the church provide soft loan interst Free to menbers and we dont do all these on tv never.[color=#990000][/color]

Make Satan use im pr!ick dance etigi inside your yansh for lying with your foul mouth. Which winners mwmbers dey enter bus free, abi you dey craze for head ni? When I was in school I attended a couple of winners services in owerri, their buses arrive at a designated bus-stop to carry us to their church in town then, we usually pay 80naira each for us to be taken to and fro. Na im u wan lie here say na free, idiota. And can you please point to one person or anywhere on the website of CU where the names of students that have benefited from any scholarship is posted abi na make you dey run ur dirty mouth anyhow. I bet the criteria for getting an imaginary scholarship is licking daddy Oledepo's ballz during service, so much for propaganda and pius fraud.

stagger: You are a fool. Pure and simple answer for you.

I don't go around pulling successful people down. They motivate me to do great things. Not nonentities like you who just buy N100 internet ticket to come here to yarn rubbish.

Hahahahaha. . And you are successful by licking Oyedepo's ballz. . Lol. .what an Idiot! Oyedepo is not the kind of person Nigeria needs, if Nigeria should be plagued with more criminals like him, the country will be worse off and we would have more goons like you, who need Oyedepo's consent before they think with their heads. There are way better successful people with genuine means and impart than a thousand Oledepo. Go to Kogi and Benue and see ordinary Nigerians, Winners members inclusive that have lost their source of livelyhood, the flood has has left them homeless and jobless, all they have is the goodwill of genuine Nigerians who are not even anywhere as rich as those criminals mounting the pupils but have been giving so that their fellow citizens can at least have respite. Oyedepo cares nothing about them, he is not even aware of such a disaster, afterall he is frolicking the world jumping from one gulfstream to another having the best of life while the people he sells false hopes to wallow in misery and want. His wealth has no impart on anybody outside his circles, he is not known to have given to any noble cause outside winners. Average Nigerians of moderate means and influence like Linda Ikeji and other good hearted ones like her can boast of a better standing in helping unfortunate people even the ones from his church to raise money for one life threatening operation or the other abroad, you see these people go to tv stations, cry and beg for assistance and yet not even one of these heartless brutes waving the bible as a substitue for the show of compassion and kindness to the people whose little they have been swindling since they learn to control them in their churches. Make God punish you and that your pastor. Ewu Hausa!

stagger: Thank you abeg!

Don't mind the fool that is thinking with his rear end. Pastor should come to build free schools when Governors like Alams, Ipah Igbinedion and Ibori cleaned out their state treasuries to build refineries abroad and their people are paying N97 per litre as a result and Peter "Donatus" Odili built a hospital in South Africa that the builder has snatched from him.

Or Bishop should build free schools when IBB could not build more than one power plant, and now wants to buy another one with the money he stole from Nigeria.

And you wonder why Nigeria is getting worse when the people are ignorant and blind fools chasing shadows.

Nonsense!

so since Odili and co has swindled Nigeria, that is enough reason for your bible wielding con star, Oledepo to capitalize on that and worsen the situation with their phantom elite schools and out of rich housing projects. Dem don talk say that man dey do mass brainwashing and mind programming experiment on his sheepish congragation in ota. If only you knew any better you will see the folly in your irrational belief in your imperfect pastor that is a poster child for Church business and scheming. He is full of vanity and materialism, he can continue to decieve himself and goons like you but to me, he is nothing different from Odili and co except that he is a smooth talking criminal that has got the perfect suckers.

Kayoski: anybodi dat is angry wif d blessings of God in d life of bishop david oyedepo shd either go nd hug transformer or jump inside lagoon.

na God go punish people like you and Oyedepo wey dey use gullible people make money. Blessings of god my yansh!

chucky234: Bishop Oydepo,hmmm I reserved my comment

Let me help Help you say it, make thunder strike im left yansh

[quote author=i.chuka]Does you church break bread day by day or even meet day by day.

My point is everyday is a Sabbath in the live of a Christain.
We should break out from the shackles of organised system in Christendom.
Heb3:13, says "TODAY" not a specific day in the week but "TODAY".[/quote]are you quoting the bible or giving your own personal interpretation of what your bible says? Everyday is sabbath indeed..lol

Christians have got to be the most confused followers of religious dogma than any other religious group in the world.
See some of them claiming that they are under a new law abi na convenant through the death and ressurection of a jewish messiah who never existed in reality or ever came as the Jews had expected, a heretic ideology one fictitious Paul character invented by Roman Catholic church runners and Bishops came up with. . Lol
In reality, the whole Sabbath culture is a jewish tradition which took roots from the jewish creation myth about their god, Yaweh resting on the seventh day after he created the world(what a 4cking joke).
Just like every other dogma and litany they have copied and refined over the centuries, the Roman catholic church gang copied the Jewish cultural belief in the Sabbath day only to put on it sunday, which realy was not the seventh day the Jewish tradition describes as their god's resting day. Sunday is supposed to be the first day of the week and saturday the last day which actually is the resting day of the jewish god.
I find it questionable and theologically dishonest that most christians will in one breath say that they no longer operate under the old judaic laws that make all these "unreasonable" and "archaic" demands they find so uncomfortable to observe but immediately make a U-turn to quote parts of those old, derelict jewish customs and laws they find supportive of their aims and dishonest schemes.
In one phase it is ok to observe it in another phase it is not recognized by the new Pauline rules. Christians are a confused and dishonest bunch whose belief system thrives on "don't ask; don't think; and don't want to Know policy".
If not, why will anyone accept the incoherent and inconsistent stories, forgeries and straight up lies of history and events as contained in the bible.
Why will anyone not question the rationale that claims that God could only appease himself by sending his only begotten son to be violently murdered by thesame humans the son is supposed to be saving from his father's anger and wrath. Does such a claim even add up or make any frigging sense. How come he is omnipotent and all knowing yet he keeps taking actions that he regrets he never did, sometimes he even had to destroy things he created just to start all over again, talk of a confused entity. How come the devil gives him so much head aches and competes for the human "soul"(christians claim he created) with him yet he is powerless to get rid of him or curtail his powers.
Could it be that the so-called Satan is equally just as powerful? By the way, who created the devil sef, christian god, I guess but apparently, he can't seem to control him or better still he is afraid of him to the point of paranoia thats why he had to send his subordinates to do his dirty job while christian humans oil his bruised ego with praise and worship. I dey laugh!

Image123: plap, did you type all these? if yes, I'm impressed, at least it shows you're more serious than copy and paste champions of nl. so, did you type all these?

duh, it's from someone's book. anyway, I'd reply later. hope you'd discuss then.

lol. . . . If you believe that Plap the slowpoke wrote all that then you could as well believe that a man named Jesus Died on the cross, went to hell to collect the keys his papa forgot with the bad guy satan when he kicked outta his house for trying to flex muscles with him . .lol
Like seriously, why are people so willingly dumb and afraid to question the illogicality and originality of these funny Jesus stories. All these Roman and Jewish fairy tales only make sense to congregations that have been numbed into gullibility with years of church mass indoctrination and mind-programming. People like me that saw the whole plot and decided to ask questions which till today have not been answered are called all sorts of names for our intellectectual rebellion and logical disagreement with their incongrous fairy tales.
These days quoting the bible is the quickest and easiest way to numb people into accepting all manner of money making schemes.