For example, almost everything Jesus is quoted as saying in the Bible is in the Didache (in many cases word for word) Now the "Xian" version is from around 125 CE; but the original Jewish text is what Naomi taught Ruth from and is much older.

Because: 1. Joseph did not begat Jesus, ergo no lineage; it is not transfered by adoption; 2. The Messiah is supposed to head the government within his lifetime, like Bar Kochba. You can't not take the original Jewish concept and definition of a messiah and change it around to fit your needs- you need a messiah of your own. Thus one finds the "prophetic" mistakes, misquotes and mistranslations that riddle the new testament in an effort to make everything fit. Clearly, Jesus is an Xian g-d and not a jewish one.

Like the those armed men guarding the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopea? Is it true the women in Canada have nicknamed you Sheik YerBooty?

I am suspected in a jaywalking case, think they'll shoot me? How about choking me to death- afterall I broke the law

But you can blame the pride that makes you hold your anger inside,
But deep down you wanna curse them all.
**** off ******* jerk off dirt ball.

You love the people that love you.
You hear the music they move to.
You give your ode to the fall through.
But you don't know you don't know you don't know you don't know.
You love the people that love you.
You hear the music they move to.
You give your ode to the fall through.
But you don't know you don't know you don't know you don't know you.


Atmosphere, You

You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt

U2 One

So what you are saying is that the bible needs to be taken literally when it says what you want it to say and it should be stretched, mistranslated or wildly and illogically intrepreted when it doesn't. As a virgin birth is a wholly pagan idea, I doubt a pious jew or even a holy ghost inspired jew would not use the word virgin if he meant a virgin; esp when the messiah must draw his lineage to David via a father, which he would no longer have. Isaiah 9:6 also reinforces the jewish concept of messiah, which jesus does not fulfil in his lifetime, ie- head of government.

Ooh what did you do?

Why would you want to? Then if you can't keep up that first impression, it falls apart

Maybe it has something to do with the use of grammar

Last night your shadow fell upon my lonely room
I touched your golden hair and tasted your perfume
Your eyes were filled with love the way they used to be
Your gentle hand reached out to comfort me
Then came the dawn
And you were gone
You were gone, gone, gone
I had too much to dream last night
Too much to dream
I'm not ready to face the light
I had too much to dream
Last night
Last night


Blues Magoos

In 2005 nearly half of all homicide victims were black
Blacks accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in 2005,
according to the FBI's UCR.* Black males accounted for
about 52% (or 6,800) of the nearly 13,000 male homicide
victims in 2005. Black females made up 35% (or 1,200) of
the nearly 3,500 female homicide victims. The number of
black males murdered increased between 2004 and 2005,
while the number of black females murdered remained the
same (figure 3). A higher percentage of black homicide vic-
tims (36%) than white victims (26%) were ages 13 to 24.
About half (51%) of black homicide victims were ages 17 to
29, compared to about 37% of white victims.
Homicides against blacks were more likely than those
against whites to occur in highly populated areas, including
cities and suburbs. About half (53%) of black homicides in
2005 took place in areas with populations of at least
250,000 people. A third (33%) of white homicides occurred
in places with that size population.
In 2005 most homicides involving one victim and one
offender were intraracial. About 93% of black homicide vic-
tims and 85% of white victims in single victim and single
offender homicides were murdered by someone of their
race. Women were the offenders in about 10% of single
victim and single offender homicides of both blacks and
whites.
Intimate partners (current or former spouses, boyfriends, or
girlfriends, including same-sex relationships) were respon-
sible for relatively fewer homicides among blacks (6%) than
among whites (12%) in 2005. Gang violence accounted for
about 5% of black homicides and about 7% of white homi-
cides. Blacks were killed with firearms in about 77% of
homicides against them in 2005, compared to 60% of white
homicide victims.
*For overall estimates of homicides, see Homicide Trends in the United
States <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm>.
Violent crime rates between 2001 and 2005 were higher
for blacks than for whites, Hispanics, and Asians
Between 2001 and 2005 blacks had higher rates of violent
victimization than whites, Hispanics, and Asians (table 2).
American Indians were the only group that had rates higher
than blacks.
Blacks were more likely to experience an aggravated
assault than whites or Hispanics
Between 2001 and 2005 the average annual rate of aggra-
vated assault for blacks (8 per 1,000 persons age 12 or
older) was nearly twice that of whites (4 per 1,000) and
slightly higher than that of Hispanics (5 per 1,000). While
blacks were more likely than whites to experience aggra-
vated assault, blacks and whites were equally likely to
experience a simple assault during the 5-year period.
Blacks were at a greater risk of rape or sexual assault than
any other racial/ethnic group except American Indians.
Serious violent crime made up nearly half of nonfatal
violent crimes against blacks between 2001 and 2005
Serious violent victimization consists of rape or sexual
Homicide victims by race and gender of the victim,
Table 2. Average annual violent victimization rate by race/
Hispanic origin and type of crime, 2001-2005
Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
Race/Hispanic
origin Total vio-lent crime Rape/sexual assault Robbery AssaultAggravatedSimple
Black/African
Americana 28.7 1.7 4.3 7.7 14.9
Whitea 22.8 0.9 2.0 4.2 15.7
American Indian/
Alaska Nativea 56.8 0.9b 4.8b 11.6 39.5
Asian/Pacific
Islandera 10.6 0.5b 2.3 1.7 6.2
Hispanic/Latino 24.3 0.8 3.6 5.3 14.5
a
Not Hispanic or Latino.
b
Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Moons and Junes and Ferris wheels,
The dizzy dancing way that you feel
As every fairy tale comes real,
I've looked at love that way.

But now it's just another show,
You leave 'em laughing when you go
And if you care, don't let them know,
Don't give yourself away.

I've looked at love from both sides now
From give and take and still somehow
It's love's illusions I recall
I really don't know love at all

joni mitchell

As I haven just noticed that this thread has been viewed over 500 times, I feel the need to clarify the POVs which are being actually expressed, so if you would, please read the last sentence in the conclusion several times.





B. THE LORD'S SUPPER - INSTITUTED BY JESUS OR PAUL?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal (in John's gospel the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal).

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread..." Here Paul claims that he got the instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus (evidently from one of his many revelations). Paul writes these words about twenty years after Jesus' death, and had the church already been celebrating the Lord's Supper he certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need to receive it from the Lord. Some apologists try to play games with the text to make it seem like Paul actually received the instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul stresses is that what he teaches he receives from no man (Galatians 1:11-12).

The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."[*].

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried to say that Mithraism copied the Lord's Supper from Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had copied it since only demons could copy an event in advance of its happening! They could not say that the followers of Mithras had copied it - it was a known fact that Mithraism had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born.

Where did Mithraism come from? The ancient historian Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in connection with the pirates of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general Pompey in 67 BC. More recently, in 1989 Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote a book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. That this is also the home town of the apostle Paul cannot be a coincidence.

Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught to him by any man (Galatians 1:11-12). All of Paul's theology is based on his own revelations, or visions. Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. It is very likely that the source of most of Paul's visions, and therefore most of his theology, is to be found in Mithraism. That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying more or less the same thing Paul said to the Corinthians many years later is another example of the church modifying the gospels to incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology of Jesus' original disciples.

II. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

A. WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST KNOW ABOUT JESUS AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers' wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy (Luke 1:44). Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", and "the Son of God" (John 1:29,36). Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive. John's definite knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke 7:18-23 in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?"

B. WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 "to fulfill all righteousness." Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, are also an embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19).

Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).

C. WHY DIDN'T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A FOLLOWER OF JESUS?

If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn't he become a disciple of Jesus? And why didn't all, or even most, of John's disciples become Jesus' disciples? Most of John's disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries.

The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus' baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down. They could not ignore it because John's followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus' baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God. The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus.

This is even more damaging if you is believe that John was Elijah

F. THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER

Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:

1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.

2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies."

Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.

Shark week is so scary, it has turned into shart week for me