That's right. It does not even know or care what 'truth' is.

And now back to the Myth

The crucifixion of Jesus was an allegory, a symbolic event written to carry a hidden meaning. It did not physically happen, you are just meant to think it did. And what of the physical resurrection from the dead by Jesus? St Paul is quoted as saying of this event in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” Corinthians 15:13-16

He says that if Jesus was not physically raised from the dead, there is no basis to the Christian faith and religion.

If that’s the case, Christianity is in serious trouble. First of all the Gospel accounts of the resurrection have numerous contradictions as each copied the original story differently, or changed it on purpose.

And secondly the resurrection is yet more Sun symbolism from the ancient religions.

In Persia, long before Christianity, they had a ritual in which a young man, apparently dead, was restored to life. He was called the Saviour and his sufferings were said to have ensured the salvation of the people. His priests watched his tomb until midnight on the equinox and they cried: “Rejoice, 0 sacred initiated! Your God is risen. His death and sufferings have worked your salvation.”

The same tale was told in Egypt about Horus and in India about Khrishna a thousand years before Christianity. The Bible tells us that Jesus will return on a cloud and what do we see among the clouds? The Sun.

The tomb of Jesus is symbolic of the darkness into which the Sun descended before its rebirth and nearly all the mystery school initiations involved some sort of cave, underground chamber, or dark enclosed space, like the sweatlodges of native America.

Even the story of the spear which pierced the side of Jesus after he was taken from the cross is mystery school symbolism. The Christian legend says that this was done by a blind Roman centurion called Longinus and some of the blood of Jesus fell on his eyes and cured his blindness.

Longinus was converted and spent the rest of his life breaking up Pagan idols. Yeah, sure he did. Centurions were not blind and could not have done their job if they were, and once again we find this story is a repeat from earlier versions.

The Scandinavian saviour, Balder, son of Odin, had a spear of mistletoe thrust into him by Hod, a god who was blind. March 15th, the Ides of March, was when many Pagan saviours also died. This day was devoted to Hod and later became a Christian feast day to the ‘Blessed Longinus’!"

jb

“But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” Corinthians 15:13-16


tribo

sorry JB, but you left out vs: 12 - " but if Christ be preached (by us the apostles) that he rose from the dead, how say some ( the ones he told the Corinthians not to listen to for they were false teachers) among you that there is no ressurection of the dead? your statement is out of context with everything else Paul was talking to them about. he's trying to get them to understand that they had believed lies told to them by other Greeks that were gnostic and spreading the word that there would be no ressurection of the dead or that it had already taken place depending on who he is talking to at the time as to which body of believers/church.

you can believe what you want makes no difference to me - but i do believe in stating things within context be it the bible or Koran or book of the dead.

I take a complete sentence as a statement on its own. It should have meaning whether or not it is out of context. If it does not stand on it's own then it is not a good statement in the first place.

But the point I am making is about the myths and the plagiarisms involved with the Bible stories. Do these writers have no imagination to write new stories or do these myths have some other meaning? Why should anyone believe any of them?

JB

the shortest verse i know in the bible is "he wept" now that is definitely a complete statement as you say, but limited in it's entire meaning, it tells not what he wept about or to whom or what or why? - to find that out one has to read the surrounding text to determine those things - that is what I'm stating to you OK?

now as to your point you know I'm not disagreeing, you know from private conversations some of what i believe, so to me the question is addressed to the others and I'll leave them to answer dear one -

I think the verse was "Jesus wept" but there may have been one that said "he wept" but I never heard of that one.

Even that short sentence "Jesus wept" tells me a lot. It tells me that Jesus has feelings and emotions and that he expressed them by weeping.

I would not presume to assume anything other than what the statement itself states.

JB

your stubborness is what holds you back in many things G, but i will interfere no more -

your correct im wrong it is jesus wept been along time since i read it bad memory sorry

I'm just not big on quoting scripture, sorry. I guess I will proceed to make my points without it if that will make you feel better.

JB

it's not that Jb, it is that i know others will bring it up anyway, your more than welcome to do anything you wish it will not bother me at all. you are my friend,

Thanks Tribo. But it looks like not many "others" are even slightly interested in my humble irrelevant insignificant rambling opinions, and my useless efforts to dismantle the current status quo of the religious authority.

So perhaps I should give some very serious consideration to retiring to my chamber and lab and getting back to my work on vortex construction.

JB

I NOW DECLARE THIS THREAD DEAD AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED.

so let it be written, so let it be so - or is that sew?

You are right, it should. But OBVIOUSLY the context allows the interpreter to glean the proper meaning. That's why context is important. Because words have meanings and a sentence can have multiple meanings based upon the context in which the sentence was written.

wisdom wisdom wisdom........that attack the heart and open the eyes to SEE ALL...........what be the CONTEXT of all words spoken as from god???????????????????????????? was it not unconditonal love...........then how can ONE be heard and interpreted to have a fearful meaning?

I have no idea what the above response means. Type it in english and I would be happy to read it.

If I were to guess, it would be that you are claiming that the whole context of the Bible is unconditional love. That is untrue. Unconditional love is tempered by judgement, Jesus was very clear on that. Regardless of if God loves us or not, God isn't going to bring someone who hates him into heaven.

Join the club Spider. Few understand the prophet Davidben1. I created a thread where I was doing my own interpretations of his writings but the mods deleted it.

Go figure.

I think Davidben's posts are every bit as clear as the Holy Scriptures.

Maybe he's the author of the Bible and he's still trying to communicate with us? We're just such primitive beings that we haven't yet evolved to a level of being able to understand him.

Just my thoughts.

Perhaps. But the Holy scriptures are not all that clear either. But my eyes go crossed and my brain hurts when I try to grasp the meaning of some of David's posts. It is there I'm sure.... but wow. He is possessed by the holy spirit I guess.

JB

indeed, your perception of what is written is the same......

the mind say not true........

if god bring no one into heaven that hate him as you say, who do you claim then can meet uncondtional love and all power and not love him?