No abra. We are all CHILDREN of God. But Jesus is the only SON of God. So again no contradiction one bit and have no idea of this Eastern Mystics you speak of.

Also nottice how the "S" is capitolized in these verses. That is how it is said, all the men in this world are the sons of God, but only one was the Son of God. Gotta keep in the semantics of how it's written.

Well, of course the Bible was written that way. The men who wrote the bible were indeed attempting to make the case that Jesus was the messiah. That was their whole agenda.

They either didn't understand what he was teaching, OR, morel likely they were perfectly aware of what he was actually trying to teach and they were purposefully using him as a dead patsy to support their original religion and authority.

In fact, I personally believe that the latter is indeed the case. There were many rumors going around in those days concerning who Jesus was and what he stood for. Many of those rumors held that Jesus was actually renouncing the ways of the Old Teachings and teaching a new view of God (a new covenant as you put it)

So the religious authorities were losing their power over the people. The people were starting to accept some of the things that Jesus was known to have taught, like the following, for example:


Matt.23
[13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
[14] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
[15] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
[23] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[25] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
[27] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
[29] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,


It was common knowledge on the street via gossip and rumors that Jesus was known to have held this view. In fact, it was probably his renouncing of the religious authorities that ultimately caused them to incite the mob to support his crucifixion.

So after his crucifixion there were many people who saw Jesus as someone who renounced the religion and religious authorities.

Well, HEADS UP Cowboy! WHO do you think WROTE the New Testament?

The SCRIBES and PHARISEES! The very people Jesus renounced!

They were the people who had the power and authority to write things up.

So the entire New Testament is THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY.

They were using a dead Jesus to reclaim their religious authority by nailing him to the Old Testament after they had incited the mob to nail him to the pole.

When you worship the Biblical picure of Jesus, you are actually supporting and worshiping the very enemies of Jesus.

They sucked you in hook, line, and sinker!

And here you are 2000 years later still giving support to the enemies of Jesus! The very people who had him nailed to the pole.

That's how powerful their brainwashing scheme WORKED!

Who says the scribes and pharisees even knew about the scriptures the bible is based on? The fact of who wrote the bible and why is hearsay, irrelevant, and impossible to prove. Because the bible itself is nothing more then a gather collection of different scribes written different places at different times. And before you go and say it wasn't the scribes themselves that were written by these people but the books. Well hate to tell you but there are many different kinds of bibles, christian, catholic, and so on. All from the original scriptures. Made in all different places at different times. So it would be nearly impossible for these pharisees to have done what you're accusing them of.


And besides what i say, what evidence, proof, or anything substantial do you have to support such an accusation?

The Bible's Ungodly Origins

by Robert L. Johnson

Many rank and file Christians sincerely believe the Bible is a direct communication from God to man. I know I used to believe it was when I was a Christian. And from recent conversations with many sincere Christians I know this is currently true for many believers. Once it is proven to our God-given reason that the Bible is strictly a man-made collection of mythology the mind loses yet another shackle of "revelation" and is soon on its way to full freedom and progress.

The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.

According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), (a bust of Constantine is pictured below) who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

To read more go to:
http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm

Origins of the Earliest Scripture
Prehistory to 1850 B.C.E.
This book is an excellent survey of the current state of Old Testament archaeology. It will be of considerable interest to both skeptic and apologist alike!



In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived.

Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.

In this Mesopotamian basin civilization, known to us today as the Chaldean Empire, tribal alliances that predated the amalgamation into a single empire, continued to exist and flourish. Many were allied to the palace, many opposed, all retained elements of their pre-conquest cultures.

The patriarchs first appear in our story with the journey of one of them, Abraham, who, the story tells us, led members of his tribe from the city of Ur, west towards the Mediterranean, to the "promised land" of Canaan, sometime between the 19th and 18th centuries B.C.E. Or so the story goes.

The problem is that we don't really have any good archeaological evidence to support the Abraham story, and there is much archaeological evidence to contradict it. The land where Abraham supposedly settled, the southern highlands of Palestine (from Jerusalem south the the Valley of Beersheba) is very sparse in archaeological evidence from this period. It is clear from the archaeological record that its population was extremely sparse - no more than a few hundred people in the entire region, and the sole occupants of the area during this time were nomadic pastoralists, much like the Bedouin of the region today. We know from clear archaeological evidence that the peoples known as the Phillistines never even entered the region until the 12th century B.C.E., and the "city of Gerar" in which Isaac, the son of Abraham, had his encounter with Abimelech, the "king of the Phillistines" (in Genesis 26:1) was in fact a tiny, insignificant rural village up until the 8th century B.C.E. It couldn't have been the capital of the regional king of a people who didn't yet exist!

This isn't the only problem with the account of the Age of the Patriarchs, either. There's the problem of the camels. We know from archaeological evidence that camels weren't domesticated until about the late second millenium B.C.E., and that they weren't widely used as beasts of burden until about 1000 B.C.E. - long after the Age of the Patriarchs. And then there's the problem of the cargo carried by the camels - "gum, balm and myrrh," which were products of Arabia - and trade with Arabia didn't begin until the era of Assyrian hegemony in the region, beginning in the 8th century B.C.E.

Yet another problem is Jacob's marriage with Leah and Rachel, and his relationship with his uncle, Laban, all of whom are described as being Arameans. This ethnic group does not appear in the archeological record prior to 1100 B.C.E., and not a significant group until the 9th century B.C.E.

Yet influences from the east must have been, because we have evidence of worship of their gods and goddesses. The heiarchy of gods and goddesses who included Baal, the god of storms, who made the land fertile, and Lotan, the seven-headed dragon, known to Old Testament readers as Leviathan. There is Yam Nahar, the god of the seas and rivers, and other pantheons and heiarchies of gods and goddesses.1 Reigning over them all was El, the king of the gods, ruler of the pantheon. Remember the name, we'll encounter it again.

For more go here:


http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Not true but you have the right to believe what you want to.

Nothing i put on here is fiction or an opinion. We are in a deep discussion about something vital, so therefor i only use absolute facts.

Oh please.

Even religious clergy aren't in agreement with what you claim to be 'absolute facts'.

Face it, Christianity is an entirely faith-based religion that has no more basis in fact than Greek Mythology.

Of course, you may not be aware of just how many events in Greek mythology can actually be traced to actual human history.

Just because the biblical stories can be associated with historical events doesn't imply in any way that their claims of divinity hold any validity.

These stories were indeed written by men, they got their inspiration from current events in the times in which they lived. That's to be expected and doesn't give their claims of divinity any support or merit at all.

As I say, you could find absolute proof that a man named Jesus historically lived, taught and was crucified. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. I absolutely expect that such a man existed. What I refuse to accept are the tales of divinity that have come to be associated with him.

So what you might point to as 'proof' of the divinity of the Bible, I just roll my eyes and tell you, "Sorry, but that's not proof of anything other than the fact that actual mortal men historically wrote these stories in the times in which they lived."

But we already KNOW that. No one is claiming that these stories mysteriously sprang up out of nowhere.

You are clearly a religious fanatic who doesn't even understand the difference between fact and FAITH.

Almost any professional clergy is HONEST enough to confess that their religion is entirely a matter of FAITH, and they have no proof of anything.

If someone taught you the things that you preach, then whoever taught you those things was either being dishonest with you, or they were themselves in deep denial of the truth.

The TRUTH is that Christianity is an entirely FAITH-BASED religion.

And as I say, I see absolutely no reason to even want to place my FAITH in such a dismal picture of both mankind and our creator.

You would have Jesus or God (or both) hating everyone who refuses to believe in the Bible. How digusting is that?

What you preach isn't even pretty.

Jesus and God hate no one, no one at all. God loves EVERYONE regardless if they believe or not. That's like saying if you punish your children you hate them. God hates no one.

I do believe that if you punish your child you either hate them, or you're just plain too ignorant to realize that punishment is an utterly stupid means of mentoring a child.

The idea idea that punishment is a valid method of mentoring a child or teaching anyone a valuable 'lesson' is an archaic insane and truly ignornant idea. Such methods of mentoring are only still used by human monkeys who haven't yet fully evolved into genuinely intelligent people.

There is no excuse for punishing a child. None. Period.

If you have an unruly child that you can't mentor properly using constructive positive examples and guidance then either you are a totally inept parent, or your child is mentally ill and requires some serious medical attention.

Also, punishing a mentally ill child is not going to cure them.

When you condone a God who uses punishment as a means of teaching moral values you are actually condoning the concept of an extremely inept God who simply isn't wise enough to comprehend and make use of more constructive and intelligent means.

To even suggest that God is that stupid is an abomination to God.

This is why the Bible is an abomination to God. The biblical God is depicted as being extremely stupid and can only ever come up with nasty ignorant ways of trying to 'teach' his childern moral values. All his ways are extremely violent.

Even through his supposed "Son" of Jesus in this story this supposed God only proves his utter stupidity. He supposedly has his son teach some really good healthy and wise moral values (moral values that were actually taught by Buddha hundreds of years earlier), but then the biblical God reverts right back to his ignorant and utterly stupid ways of using violence to ultimately make his point.

The entire bible from start to finish is an utter abomination to the idea of a God.

In fact, look what the story has you believing!

It has you believing that it's somehow WISE to use punishment as a means of mentoring and teaching children.

The book should be condemned by child abuse authorities as actually teaching and inspiring child abuse! It truly should be against the law to teach the contents of the Bible as the supposed "word of God" because it's clearly an abomination to both God and man, as well as being extremely detrimental for our children.

It serves to do nothing other than support the utterly insane and ignorant idea that punishment is a valid (or even wise) means of mentoring or teaching childern.

What an archaic and insane concept.

I'm truly sorry to hear that you support such ignorance associated with raising children. So sad.

if not putting some form of punishment on things, how would God get us listen and obey? Cause obviousely most people wouldn't listen, heck alot of people don't listen even with the punishment being there.

I do believe that if you punish your child you either hate them, or you're just plain too ignorant to realize that punishment is an utterly stupid means of mentoring a child.

The idea idea that punishment is a valid method of mentoring a child or teaching anyone a valuable 'lesson' is an archaic insane and truly ignornant idea. Such methods of mentoring are only still used by human monkeys who haven't yet fully evolved into genuinely intelligent people.

There is no excuse for punishing a child. None. Period.

If you have an unruly child that you can't mentor properly using constructive positive examples and guidance then either you are a totally inept parent, or your child is mentally ill and requires some serious medical attention.

Also, punishing a mentally ill child is not going to cure them.

When you condone a God who uses punishment as a means of teaching moral values you are actually condoning the concept of an extremely inept God who simply isn't wise enough to comprehend and make use of more constructive and intelligent means.

To even suggest that God is that stupid is an abomination to God.

This is why the Bible is an abomination to God. The biblical God is depicted as being extremely stupid and can only ever come up with nasty ignorant ways of trying to 'teach' his childern moral values. All his ways are extremely violent.

Even through his supposed "Son" of Jesus in this story this supposed God only proves his utter stupidity. He supposedly has his son teach some really good healthy and wise moral values (moral values that were actually taught by Buddha hundreds of years earlier), but then the biblical God reverts right back to his ignorant and utterly stupid ways of using violence to ultimately make his point.

The entire bible from start to finish is an utter abomination to the idea of a God.

In fact, look what the story has you believing!

It has you believing that it's somehow WISE to use punishment as a means of mentoring and teaching children.

The book should be condemned by child abuse authorities as actually teaching and inspiring child abuse! It truly should be against the law to teach the contents of the Bible as the supposed "word of God" because it's clearly an abomination to both God and man, as well as being extremely detrimental for our children.

It serves to do nothing other than support the utterly insane and ignorant idea that punishment is a valid (or even wise) means of mentoring or teaching childern.

What an archaic and insane concept.

I'm truly sorry to hear that you support such ignorance associated with raising children. So sad.

But Abra your interpretation of the the Bible is just wrong.
It is inappropriate to use the Bible to attempt to
raise one group of people over another. The stories of punishments
and floods and scourges are only to teach various lessons and
not to be taken as factual accounts. Oh My! No No No!

Moreover for those who believe in one unifying single deity then
there is no difference whether you call such deity the fairy mama,
yahweird, heysoos, morehammered or the great exalted booda mahatma.
No name nor any sculpted image can accurately capture god.

If there is only one then this single deity is the same for all
who believe in one and it makes no real difference as far as that
deity is concerned what stories are used for the purpose of
education - as long as the teaching is good~



is the teaching good yet?

I think you misunderstand my position Slow. I'm actually in agreement with you to a point. If taken as pure mythology we can obtain some "moral concepts" from some of the stories in the Bible.

As pure man-written fables, they can be interesting and sometimes convey good moral points. Although sometimes they also convey truly horrible moral concepts (such as suggesting that women should be second-class citizens), and there are clearly parts of the Bible that clearly suggest as much.

Taken as man-made fables they have *some* value.

However, when taken obscessively as the "Only True Word of God", they quickly lose any value at all.

Like I just told Cowboy, the Bible clearly condones the concept of punishments and threats of punishments as a valid means of teaching childern good moral concpets. The Biblical God is a blatant example of using such teaching techniques.

I might add here also that his technique CLEARLY NEVER WORKED either!

His children continued to misbehave until he had to end up flooding the vast majority off the planet. Then they continued to misbehave and become nastier until he had to have his son nailed to a pole to teach them yet another "lesson" (yet another act of teaching violence on his part).

And look at the world today, people are still fighting with each other in wars and religion, etc. Clearly if the Biblical picture of God is true then God is an EXTREMELY POOR TEACHER AND PARENT!

His methods of using violence and punishment to instill good morals in his childern clearly NEVER WORKS.

He's a proven failure as a parent. Utterly proven to be a horrible teacher and mentor of his chilern. He hasn't gotten through to them yet. His violent teaching methods apparently only serve to make his children more violent as well.

His method is a proven failure. Time tested for millennia to NOT WORK.

So where's the value in this book again?

It's a teaching method that doesn't even work for the God that supposedly uses it.

It is true, if you don't believe it i dare you to look it up if you truely want to know the truth, or you can be closed minded like alot of athiest and just assume that there's no way it could be possible.

Nothing i put on here is fiction or an opinion. We are in a deep discussion about something vital, so therefor i only use absolute facts.