If You Get Offended Easily Dont Read This.........

[MelT]

You might all be interested in this site, which is pro-christianity, as it shows many, many things wrong in the Bible. Here's an excerpt:

During the celebration of Christmas, familiar images are recalled in hymns and scripture about the birth of Jesus. In the popular mind, the appearance of herald angels, shepherds abiding in the fields, the star of Bethlehem, the virgin Mary giving birth in a stable, and the adoration of the Magi, have all been melded into one Christmas story. In reality, there are in the gospels, two distinct and at times contradictory stories of Jesus' birth. A careful reading of the Bible itself reveals that so much about this celebrated birth is myth.

Dating December 25 as the birthday of Jesus, is known to have gained popularity only by the mid-fourth century in order that Christians could have an alternative to a popular pagan festival at this time of year. December 25 was the winter solstice according to the old Julian calendar, and it was on that day that Mithraism, a chief rival to Christianity, celebrated the birth of the god, Mithra. It is unlikely that we shall ever know exactly when Jesus was born (scholars estimate sometime between 12 and 4 B.C.) or the real circumstances surrounding his nativity. We can, however, attempt to separate historical fact from literary fiction.

The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, so central to the traditional Christmas story, was not part of the teaching of the first Christians, whom it should be remembered, also remained within the Jewish faith (Luke 24:52-53). The apostle Paul makes no reference to the virginal conception by the mother of Jesus when speaking of Jesus' origins and divinity. His epistles were written during the 50's A.D. and predate all of the four gospels. Although Paul never met Jesus (who died about 30 A.D.), he personally did know James, the brother of Jesus. Yet despite this eye-witness link to Jesus, Paul apparently knows nothing of the virgin birth, for he states only that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4) and was "descended from David, according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), thereby implying a normal birth.

The earliest written gospel was Mark, which was likely composed in the early 70's A.D. in southern Syria. Mark does not consider the birth of Jesus worth mentioning. The silence of the earliest Jewish-Christian authors about the miraculous birth of Jesus seems strange, given that they were trying to convince their readers that Jesus was divine. This silence raises doubts about the authenticity of the later nativity stories with which we are so familiar.

The gospel of John, likely written in northern Syria sometime in the first decade of the second century, asserts that Jesus existed from the beginning of creation. John states that the pre-existent Jesus is the eternal Word, and that he was begotten of the Father and made human at a particular point in time (John 1:1-14). This gospel also claims that Jesus was the son of Joseph (John 1:45) and chooses to ignore or reject the birth stories in the earlier writings of Matthew and Luke. Only the gospels of Matthew and Luke refer to the biological miracle of a virgin woman being made pregnant by an act of God, and giving birth to a baby boy. Matthew was likely written in northern Palestine sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, and Luke in Asia Minor sometime during the late 90's, both about a century after his birth. Just how reliable are the Matthew and Luke birth narratives?

For many Christians, to question the description of Jesus' birth as related in the Bible is unthinkable. They believe that the Bible is the "word of God", an infallible record of the Almighty's influence on his creation, and therefore to be taken at face value. However, a careful study of the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke indicate that the supposedly unerring "word of God" is full of contradictions and inventions. The most plausible conclusion is that the familiar Christmas stories in Matthew and Luke are religious myths, awkwardly grafted onto an earlier non-miraculous tradition about Jesus' birth.

They appear to be legends recorded by later Jewish-Christian apologists who were attempting to explain the origins of a man whom they considered divine. In this sense, the authors employed the familiar Jewish practice of the time known as "midrash" to illustrate and prove their points; that is to say, they liberally interpreted and expanded on texts and prophesies in the Jewish scriptures. The miraculous birth stories also served other purposes, namely, to rebut the contemporary inferences about the illegitimate birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:18-19, Mark 6:3, John 8:41) and to counter charges that he was possessed by the devil, rather than the spirit.

One of the first examples of things not ringing true can be found in the attempts by the authors of Matthew and Luke to trace the ancestry of Jesus back to the Jewish king David. It was from the royal house of David that the messiah was expected. However, upon close examination, the tables of descent in these gospels become transparently artificial, with many errors and downright contradictions. For example, the two gospels cannot agree on the lineage of Joseph, the father of Jesus. Matthew has 28 generations between David and Jesus, while Luke has 41 for the same period of about 1,000 years. In Matthew's gospel, Joseph's father (i.e. Jesus' grandfather) is said to be Jacob, while in Luke it is claimed that he is Heli. They cannot both be right....."
To read more, go to: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

MelT

[Pass That Shit]

"You might all be interested in this site, which is pro-christianity, as it shows many, many things wrong in the Bible"

Unlike the bible, your comment contradicts from the start. A true Christian is one who believes that the words of God are true. So if your doubting any of Jesus' writings, are you really a christian? If you say that any of the word of God is untrue, then you are calling Jesus a liar. One who believes in him, does not call him a liar. Based on your opening comment, I would not bother with those "pro christians".

Keep in mind, that lack of spritual understanding on your part, does not make the bible incorrect. There are many teachings in the info that you consider contradictive. Do you have proof that jesus did not raise from the dead? Do you have any proof that I will NOT raise from the dead? The point is, you can't disprove FAITH.

As far as December 25 being the birth date of Jesus. I don't know where religion came up with that date, cause it's not givin in the scriptures. The christmas holiday has nothing to do with Christ.

[MelT]

LOL! I'm certainly NOT a christian.

You asked for any contradictions in the Bible, I've given you some and your response is to say that there can't be any, because the Bible can't be wrong? LOL! That's pretty funny.

Yep. Goood debating skills you got there...

MelT

[Krogith]

modern religion is not Following what the bible teaches, is what he was saying. pointing out what the christian chirch has done wrong is just proveing the fact that people who follow them are blind sighted. Following what Jesus tought also includes leaveing chirches and pratices that are False Behind. Get out of Babylon if you want to save your self. False religion is going to Fall.

[Pass That Shit]

"Yep. Goood debating skills you got there..."

Do you have proof that jesus did not raise from the dead? Do you have any proof that I will NOT raise from the dead?

Where are your debating skills?

Unbelief is pure speculation and theory. It's a lack of wisdom and knowledge. FAITH can't be touched.

[MelT]

"Yep. Goood debating skills you got there..."

Do you have proof that jesus did not raise from the dead? Do you have any proof that I will NOT raise from the dead?

Where are your debating skills?

Unbelief is pure speculation and theory. It's a lack of wisdom and knowledge. FAITH can't be touched.

LOL! And this is the real problem. People like you ask for proof that the bible is wrong, or proof that jesus didn't exist, but when any is offered that you can't cope with you immediately resort to the idea that faith is all you need negate that proof. It's sad, and not really exactly proof of anything, is it? 'I believe it's so and that's the end of it'. That's not a debate, that's a closed statement.

You don't want to be believe anything other than what you've already blindly accepted. You're not prepared to accept any other authority than the bible and your own faith, which immediately makes any debate with you impossible. You're not here to debate and see the merit and faults in yours and others arguments, you're just here to tell us how right and infallible christianity is. You're welcome to believe whatever you want to, but don't be at all surprised when some here find it funny.

Me, I find it beyond funny. I find it bigotted and terrifyingly closed-minded - it also worries me that you represent a whole swathe of people with similar beliefs. "I am right because I am a christian." Is that a truly christian approach?

How many people have christians killed over the last couple of thousand years? Millions. Most not because they weren't christians, but for supporting the wrong form of christianity! For a religion of peace and understanding that's a pretty poor track record.

Of the 3,500 forms of christianity, how many kinds do you *personally* think are real representations of your faith? One? Two? And does that make all the other forms wrong? Are Catholics real christians to you? Mormons? Are Jews? All worship the same god, but are separated from you (only because you've been told that this is the case) purely by dogma. Dogma so important that you hate even your own christian, god-worshipping fellow men if the words of their prayers, or their route to heaven differs from yours. I say again, not a good track record for a religion of peace, is it?

If there is a god, my prayer is that he save me from his followers and their bigotry.

MelT

[Pass That Shit]

I don't think you understand. I have the substance and the evidence inside me. You can't take that from me, but neither can I convince you of it. I speak what I feel. If you don't want to believe me, DON'T. Your beliefs are not offensive to me, so don't let my faith bother you. If you know that I'm wrong, why you bugged? Be happy that you know the TRUTH.

"And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me"

[graph]

"You might all be interested in this site, which is pro-christianity, as it shows many, many things wrong in the Bible"

Unlike the bible, your comment contradicts from the start. A true Christian is one who believes that the words of God are true. So if your doubting any of Jesus' writings, are you really a christian? If you say that any of the word of God is untrue, then you are calling Jesus a liar.

Is it possible that man, in his forever lasting fallacy, has construed the Word of God? Man wrote the bible, and Man messes a lot of things up.

Eager to learn your views, mi amigo.

[Pass That Shit]

Graph,
If there were any mistakes, it would be in the translations. But even in the different translations, the same points are carried out in all the scriptures. Even if the exact word is not used to translate the original hebrew and greek writings, the same spiritual lesson comes across. There are NO mistakes by the authors themselves in the original writings. Even though man wrote the bible, I believe they were inpired and written with the finger of God. That's why biblical writings don't contradict. The bible has ONE author and ONE gospel. Moses' writings are Jesus' words. It's called the word of God for a reason.

[halosin8r]

I guess I fit in the.. Christian Other... but I prefer looking at the philisophical view of things and except the universe as always been and always will be.