THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Who wrote the New Testament?

Christian scholars admit that they do not know. They admit that, if the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they must have been written in Hebrew. And yet a Hebrew manuscript of any one of these gospels has never been found. All have been and are in Greek. So, educated theologians admit that the Epistles, James and Jude, were written by persons who had never seen one of the four gospels. In these Epistles -- in James and Jude -- no reference is made to any of the gospels, nor to any miracle recorded in them.
The first mention that has been found of one of our gospels was made about one hundred and eight years after the birth of Christ, and the four gospels were first named and quoted from at the beginning of the third century, about one hundred an seventy years after the death of Christ.

We now know that there were many other gospels besides our four, some of which have been lost. There were the gospels of Paul, of the Egyptians, of the Hebrews, of Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of Thomas, of Mary, of Andrew, of Nicodemus, of Marcion and several others.

So there were the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of Paul and Thecla and of many others; also a book called the Shepherd of Hermas.
At first not one of all the books was considered as inspired. The Old Testament was regarded as divine; but the books that now constitute the New Testament were regarded as human productions. We now know that we do not know who wrote the four gospels.

The question is, Were the authors of these four gospels inspired?

If they were inspired, then the four gospels mast be true. If they are true, they mast agree.

The four gospels do not agree.

Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing of the atonement, nothing of salvation by faith. They knew only the gospel of good deeds -- of charity. They teach that if we forgive others God will forgive us.
With this the gospel of John does not agree.

In that gospel we are taught that we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; that we must be born again; that we must drink the blood and eat the flesh of Christ. In this gospel we find the doctrine of the atonement and that Christ died for us and suffered in our place.

This gospel is utterly at variance with the other three. If the other three are true, the gospel of John is false. If the gospel of John was written by an inspired man, the writers of the other three were uninspired. From this there is no possible escape. The four cannot be true.

It is evident that there are many interpolations in the four gospels.
For instance, in the 28th chapter of Matthew is an account to the effect that the soldiers at the tomb of Christ were bribed to say that the disciples of Jesus stole away his body while they, the soldiers, slept.

This is clearly an interpolation. It is a break in the narrative.

The 10th verse should be followed by the 16th. The 10th verse is as follows:

"Then Jesus said unto them, 'Be not afraid; go tell my brethren that they go unto Galilee and there shall they see me.'"

The 16th verse:

"Then the eleven disciples went away unto Galilee into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed them."

The story about the soldiers contained in the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th verses is an interpolation -- an afterthought -- long after. The 15th verse demonstrates this.

Fifteenth verse: "So they took the money and did as they were taught. And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."

Certainly this account was not in the original gospel, and certainly the 15th verse was not written by a Jew. No Jew could have written this: "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."

Mark, John and Luke never heard that the soldiers had been bribed by the priests; or, if they had, did not think it worth while recording. So the accounts of the Ascension of Jesus Christ in Mark and Luke are interpolations. Matthew says nothing about the Ascension.

Certainly there never was a greater miracle, and yet Matthew, who was present -- who saw the Lord rise, ascend and disappear -- did not think it worth mentioning.

On the other hand, the last words of Christ, according to Matthew, contradict the Ascension: "Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."

John, who was present, if Christ really ascended, says not one word on the subject.

As to the Ascension, the gospels do not agree.

Mark gives the last conversation that Christ had with his disciples, as follows:

"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God."

Is it possible that this description was written by one who witnessed this miracle?

This miracle is described by Luke as follows.

"And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from them and carried up into heaven."

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

In the Acts we are told that: "When he had spoken, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight."

Neither Luke, nor Matthew, nor John, nor the writer of the Acts, heard one word of the conversation attributed to Christ by Mark. The fact is that the Ascension of Christ was not claimed by his disciples.

At first Christ was a man -- nothing more. Mary was his mother, Joseph his father. The genealogy of his father, Joseph, was given to show that he was of the blood of David.

Then the claim was made that he was the son of God, and that his mother was a virgin, and that she remained a virgin until her death.
Then the claim was made that Christ rose from the dead and ascended bodily to heaven.

It required many years for these absurdities to take possession of the minds of men.

If Christ rose from the dead, why did he not appear to his enemies? Why did he not call on Caiaphas, the high priest?

Why did he not make another triumphal entry into Jerusalem?

If he really ascended, why did he not do so in public, in the presence of his persecutors? Why should this, the greatest of miracles, be done in secret. in a corner?

It was a miracle that could have been seen by a vast multitude -- a miracle that could not be simulated -- one that would have convinced hundreds of thousands.

After the story of the Resurrection, the Ascension became a necessity. They had to dispose of the body.

So there are many other interpolations in the gospels and epistles.
Again I ask: Is the New Testament true?

Does anybody now believe that at the birth of Christ there was a celestial greeting; that a star led the Wise Men of the East; that Herod slew the babes of Bethlehem of two years old and under?

The gospels are filled with accounts of miracles. Were they ever performed?

Matthew gives the particulars of about twenty-two miracles, Mark of about nineteen, Luke of about eighteen and John of about seven.
According to the gospels, Christ healed diseases, cast out devils, rebuked the sea, cured the blind, fed multitudes with five loaves and two fishes, walked on the sea, cursed a fig tree, turned water into wine and raised the dead.

Matthew is the only one that tells about the Star and the Wise Men -- the only one that tells about the murder of babes.

John is the only one who says anything about the resurrection of Lazarus, and Luke is the only one giving an account of the rising from the dead the widow of Nain's son.

How is it possible to substantiate these miracles?

The Jews, among whom they were said to have been performed, did not believe them. The diseased, the palsied, the leprous, the blind who were cured, did not become followers of Christ. Those that were raised from the dead were never heard of again.

Does any intelligent man believe in the existence of devils?

The writer of three of the gospels certainly did. John says nothing about Christ having cast out devils, but Matthew, Mark and Luke give many instances.

Does any natural man now believe that Christ cast out devils?

If his disciples said he did, they were mistaken. If Christ said he did, he was insane or an impostor.

If the accounts of casting out devils are false, then the writers were ignorant or dishonest. If they wrote through ignorance, then they were not inspired. If they wrote what they knew to be false, they were not inspired. If what they wrote is untrue, whether they knew it or not, they were not inspired.

At that time it was believed that palsy, epilepsy, deafness, insanity and many other diseases were caused by devils; that devils took possession of and lived in the bodies of men and women. Christ believed this, taught this belief to others, and pretended to cure diseases by casting devils out of the sick and insane. We know now, if we know anything, that diseases are not caused by the presence of devils. We know, if we know anything, that devils do not reside in the bodies of men.

If Christ said and did what the writers of the three gospels say he said and did, then Christ was mistaken. If he was mistaken, certainly he was not God. And if he was mistaken, certainly he was not inspired.

Is it a fact that the Devil tried to bribe Christ?

Is it a fact that the Devil carried Christ to the top of the temple and tried to induce him to leap to the ground?

How can these miracles be established?

The principals have written nothing, Christ has written nothing, and the Devil has remained silent.

How can we know that the Devil tried to bribe Christ? Who wrote the account? We do not know. How did the writer get his information? We do not know.

Somebody, some seventeen hundred years ago, said that the Devil tried to bribe God; that the Devil carried God to the top of the temple and tried to induce him to leap to the earth and that God was intellectually too keen for the Devil.

This is all the evidence we have. Is there anything in the literature, of the world more perfectly idiotic?

Intelligent people no longer believe in witches, wizards, spooks and devils, and they are perfectly satisfied that every word in the New Testament about casting out devils is utterly false.

Can we believe that Christ raised the dead?

A widow living in Nain is following the body of her son to the tomb. Christ halts the funeral procession and raises the young man from the dead and gives him back to the arms of his mother.

This young man disappears. He is never heard of again. No one takes the slightest interest in the man who returned from the realm of death. Luke is the only one who tells the story. Maybe Matthew, Mark and John never heard of it, or did not believe it and so failed to record it.

John says that Lazarus was raised from the dead; Matthew, Mark and Luke say nothing about it.

It was more wonderful than the raising of the widow's son. He had not been laid in the tomb for days. He was only on his way to the grave, but Lazarus was actually dead. He had begun to decay.
Lazarus did not excite the least interest. No one asked him about the other world. No one inquired of him about their dead friends. When he died the second time no one said: "He is not afraid. He has traveled that road twice and knows just where he is going."
We do not believe in the miracles of Mohammed, and yet they are as well attested as this. We have no confidence in the miracles performed by Joseph Smith, and yet the evidence is far greater, far better.

If a man should go about now pretending to raise the dead, pretending to cast out devils, we would regard him as insane.

What, then, can we say of Christ?

If we wish to save his reputation we are compelled to say that he never pretended to raise the dead; that he never claimed to have cast out devils.

We must take the ground that these ignorant and impossible things were invented by zealous disciples, who sought to deify their leader.
In those ignorant days these falsehoods added to the fame of Christ. But now they put his character in peril and belittle the authors of the gospels.

Can we now believe that water was changed into wine?

John tells of this childish miracle, and says that the other disciples were present, yet Matthew, Mark and Luke say nothing about it.

Take the miracle of the man cured by the pool of Bethseda. John says that an angel troubled the waters of the pool of Bethseda, and that whoever got into the pool first after the waters were troubled was healed.

Does anybody now believe that an angel went into the pool and troubled the waters?

Does anybody now think that the poor wretch who got in first was healed?

Yet the author of the gospel according to John believed and asserted these absurdities. If he was mistaken about that he may have been about all the miracles he records.

John is the only one who tells about this pool of Bethseda. Possibly the other disciples did not believe the story.

How can we account for these pretended miracles?

In the days of the disciples, and for many centuries after, the world was filled with the supernatural. Nearly everything that happened was regarded as miraculous. God was the immediate governor of the world. If the people were good, God sent seed time and harvest; but if they were bad he sent flood and hail, frost and famine. If anything wonderful happened it was exaggerated until it became a miracle.

Of the order of events -- of the unbroken and the unbreakable chain of causes and effects -- the people had no knowledge and no thought.
A miracle is the badge and brand of fraud. No miracle ever was performed. No intelligent, honest man ever pretended to perform a miracle, and never will.

If Christ had wrought the miracles attributed to him; if he had cured the palsied and insane; if he had given hearing to the deaf, vision to the blind; if he had cleansed the leper with a word, and with a touch had given life and feeling to the withered limb; if he had given pulse and motion, warmth and thought, to cold and breathless clay; if he had conquered death and rescued from the grave its pallid prey -- no word would have been uttered, no hand raised, except in praise and honor. In his presence all heads would have been uncovered -- all knees upon the ground.

Is it not strange that at the trial of Christ no one was found to say a word in his favor?

No man stood forth and said: "I was a leper, and this man cured me with a touch."

No woman said: "I am the widow of Nain and this is my son whom this man raised from the dead."

No man said: "I was blind, and this man gave me sight."
All silent.

The reason the verses seem confusing to some is because they are written by different people with different personalities.

Luke for instance, was a physician.
Paul made tents.
Peter was a fisherman.

... Just to name a few.


They did not lose their personal identity or background. This allows for the varied styles and individuality of expression.

Amos, a herdsman (Amos 1:1; 7:14-15), makes many references
to the land (chapter 3:4-5, 12; 4:11; 5:19; 6:12; etc.).

Luke, a physician and educated man (Colossians 4:14), wrote with an exactness and skill (Luke 1:1-4).

Peter, a fisherman (Luke 5:7), was "unlearned and ignorant" (Acts 4:13); he wrote with a simplicity of style.

The epistles of Paul, a religious intellectual and zealot (Romans 9:1-3;Galatians 1:14), are written in a style that Peter said to many appears "hard to be understood" (2 Peter 3:16).

The Authors are Peter,Paul,John,Matthew,Luke,Jude,Mark,James,and John the Revelationist.

Although the New Testament speaks of the birth

and life of Jesus come in the flesh.....

one has to remember something:

And that is.....

JESUS ALWAYS WAS .

AND IS.


JESUS IS " I AM " !!!!


Even before becoming man in the flesh...Jesus Already WAS.....

FROM THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD !!!

(JESUS IS THE WORD.....WHO SPOKE THE VERY WOLRDS INTO EXISTENCE(see genesis chapter one)

And JESUS ALSO ALWAYS IS.


There are also many types and shadows of Christ....

telling us exactly who JESUS IS....

even found in the Old testament....as well as the new.


Let's Take a Look Now at Who JESUS IS:




In Genesis, He's the Breath of Life

In Exodus, the Passover Lamb

In Leviticus, He's our High Priest

Numbers, the Fire by Night

Deuteronomy, He's Moses' Voice

In Joshua, He is Salvation's choice

Judges, Law Giver

In Ruth, the kinsmen-redeemer

First and Second Samuel, our Trusted Prophet

In Kings and Chronicles, He's Sovereign

Nehemiah, He's the rebuilder of broken walls and lives

In Esther, He's Mordecai's courage

In Job, the timeless redeemer

In Psalms, He is our morning song

In Proverbs, wisdom's cry

Ecclesiastes, the time and season

In the Song of Solomon, He is the lover's dream

In Isaiah, He's Prince of Peace

Jeremiah, the weeping prophet

In Lamentations, the cry for Israel

Ezekiel, He's the call from sin

In Daniel, the stranger in the Fire

In Hosea, He is forever faithful

In Joel, He's the spirit's power

In Amos, the arms that carry us

In Obadiah, He's the Lord our Savior

In Jonah, He's the great missionary

In Micah, the promise of peace

In Nahum, He is our strength and our shield

In Habakkuk and Zephaniah He's pleading for revival

In Haggai, He restores a lost heritage

In Zechariah, our fountain

In Malachi, He is the sun of righteousness

Rising with healing in His wings

In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John He is God, Man Messiah

In the book of Acts, He is Fire from Heaven

In Romans, He's the Grace of God

In Corinthians, the power of Love

In Galatians, He is freedom from the curse of sin

Ephesians, our glorious treasure

Philippians, the servant's heart

In Colossians, He's the Godhead Trinity

Thessalonians, Our coming King

In Timothy, Titus, Philemon He's our mediator and our faithful pastor

In Hebrews, the everlasting covenant

In James, the One who heals the sick

In First and Second Peter, He is our Shepherd

In John and Jude, He's the Lover Coming for His bride

In Revelation, He is King of kings and Lord of lords

The Prince of Peace, The Son of Man, The Lamb of God,

The Great I Am, He's the Alpha and Omega,

Our God and our Savior, He is Jesus Christ the Lord,


And when time is no more..

HE IS... HE IS... Our Lord comes!!!!

First the "harvest," then HOME! Isaiah 60:1-3





http://www.godswork.org/enpoem6.htm

Smiless , My Friend.....the New Testament article you

just shared above...

is just an example of what one will find on the internet

today, regarding Christianity .........

and sadly, will usually be filled with man's opinions

and be found full of error...

and all in all ,is nothing more than a total misrepresentation
of scripture.


That is why it is always BEST to

Go to the "BOOK " ITSELF..for the TRUE Source of Info regarding

TRUE Christianity, Smiless....

NOT man.

OR just the internet

There are actually only two gospels.

Mark wrote the first one.

Matthew's gospel is actually the gospel of Mark re-written for a Jewish Audience. Matthew added his own views that he felt would be significant for a Jewish Audience. There are also minor differences, which could have been introduced by pure error, or they could have actually been personal disagreement that Matthew had with the gospel of Mark.

Luke's gospel is also the gospel of Mark re-written for a non-jewish audience. Again, he either introduced mistakes or added some of his own personal opinions.

John's gospel is a totally seperate rumor.

It's important to realize that there were many rumors of Jesus being passed around in those days. Evidently Jesus had indeed been crucified for having denounced the Old Testament.

There were probably many rumors about who Jesus was and what he stood for. Very few of them actually seeing Jesus as the Son of the God of Abraham. Although there were no-doubt rumors to that effect as well.

The Bible as we know it today is a collection of very selected rumors that support an idea that Jesus was the Son of the God of Abraham and was the messiah that predicted in the Old Testament. However, most Jews did not accept those rumors because Jesus didn't fulfill the propheses.

It's truly a moot point today.

Today we now know that the God of Abraham was necessarily mythical. The things that the authors of the Old Testament claimed about this God were simply false. Therefore it would be impossible for Jesus to have been the son of that God.

So the New Testament is necessarily a false rumor in that regard.

This doesn't mean that some man named Jesus never existed. On the contrary he very well may have existed and been crucified for having denounced the Old Testament.

But there's no way that he was the sacarifical lamb of the God of Abraham sent by a virgin birth to die on a cross to pay for the sins of man.

That story wouldn't even make any sense even if the Old Testament had been true. But as I say, we now know that the Old Testament contains lies.

The Old Testament blames mankind for bringing sin, death, and imperfection into the world becasue he fell from grace from God.

That's clearly a falsehood. Today we know that death, imperfections, and what we would call 'evil' has always existed long before mankind ever appeared on planet Earth.

So this proves that the God of Abraham was a myth.

Therefore any stories that claim that Jesus was the son of that mythical God are also necessarily false.

Jesus could not possibly have been "The Christ".

There is no "Chirst". That very concept is a myth. That very concept would have required the God or Abraham to be true.

The God of Abraham is clearly every bit as mythical as Zeus.

Today we have proof that it's a false doctrine.

Why people continue to beat this dead horse of a religion is beyond me. They must truly be desperate to believe in something and they just can't find anything else that they can buy into.

What truly amazes me is how easily they buy into this story. It's a truly disgusting story that makes both mankind and God seem like totally pathetic beings.

It's based almost entirely on vengence, predjudice and judgements of others which is emphasised in the religions total rejection of 'non-believers' as being somehow less than righteous.

It's also extremely conflicting in that Jesus himself supposedly rejected the violent judgemental ways of the original mythology and instead tried to teach brotherly love and non-judgement. Something that the follows of the religion have NEVER learned.

It's an oxymoronic religion that can't possible be true on so many levels it's just utterly amazing that people are still beating this dead horse.

Well this is precisely what I've done and I've concluded that the book itself is in dire conflict.

Based on the book:

1. God is powerless to do anything
2. God bets with Satan (Job)
3. God is mean to his most loyal servants and followers (Job again)
4. Jesus totally disagreed with the God of Abraham.
5. Nowhere does Jesus even claim to be the son of the God of Abraham.
6. According to the gospels even Jesus himself said that everything he prohesized would come to pass in their current generation.

In short, the book doesn't even come close to saying anything near what modern Christianity claims it says.

Also, keep in mind that if you read this book, it doesn't contain a single solairy word from Jesus. It's all hearsay, most of which is very conflicting.

Finally, even if all the conflicts and inconsistencies are ignored, the God of Abraham would need to be a complete bumbling idiot in order for this book to be true.

Oh, and then there's the FAITH factor!

Maybe we should just have FAITH that this story is somehow true despite all of the extremely conflicting stories containted within.

Well, why would we want to do that?

The book claims that all of mankind has fallen from grace from our creator!

The book claims that we are all sinners who have turned against our creator!

The book claims that the only way to get back in good with God we must accept that the crucifixion was done on our behalf!

Now, I don't know about other people, but I personally have absolutely no incentive to believe all these horrible things are PURE FAITH.

On the contrary I would be extremely pleased to discover that they are all totally false.

So why would I even want to have FAITH that this horror story is true?

If I'm going to place my FAITH in something I'd rather place it in something far more POSITIVE and accept that this story is most likely a total myth.

The only thing this story claims to be saving us from is the WRATH of God!

Why would I want to put my FAITH in the idea that creator is full of WRATH and out to get me?

That's a truly horrible thing to put my FAITH in.

I'd much rather put my FAITH in the idea that if I have a creator She's very pleased with me.

That's a far better scenario to put my FAITH in.

And so that's what I do.

After all, why should I believe that God is less compassionate than me?

But that's exactly what I would need to believe in order to believe the Bible.

Abra....don't you know by now, that God didn't come to condemn the world...

but to save the world....

Cause He LOVES us !!!

God did NOT come....

just because God thinks we are some worthless sinners or losers !!!

Come on Abra...lose all that negative thinking that you have been harboring all these years , about who you THINK God is.

(What the heck happened back then...did your uncle slap you over the head ..making you feel worthless or something..or what!).


Abra..just ask God to show you Who He REALLY IS NOW!!!

Just Ask !!!

Take a break..go talk to Him...in earnest..let HIM show you WHO He REALLY Is.

Seriously.

You have TOOO much going for you ,Abra.

You are soooo Gifted..talented..and I personally don't want to see you going around in circles, only quessing about who God is.... spinning your wheeels on here anymore..going nowhere.

Abra....YOU CAN KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT GOD!!

BT YOU GOTTA WANT TO KNOW HIM NOW!!

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW HIM NOW?

INSTEAD OF ALWAYS TELLING GOD WHO YOU THINK HE IS ???

GO HAVE A LITTLE TALK WITH GOD.....

AND ASK HIM TO SHOW YOU WHO HE IS!!

THEN LISTEN!!!

CAUSE ABRA.....WHEN YOU DO.... YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT THE REAL

GOD....

HAS A PLAN AND PURPOSE FOR YOUR LIFE STILL.......

AND STILL WANTS TO GIVE YOU LIFE ...AND A LIFE MORE ABUNDANT!!!!

AND ALSO FINALLY.....

GOD WANTS TO HELP YOU REALLY PUT TO USE ALL THOSE GIFTS

AND TALENTS ..THAT GOD GAVE YOU!!!

THERE IS GREATNESS IN YOU, ABRA!!!!

DON'T LET IT GO TO WASTE !!!!

Found an EXCELLENT WEBSITE ,

that offered clear cut biblical answers to some of the

questions asked.

But ended up having to delete it ,


because the website was so trashed with

spam and other interference.

There is absolutely nothing negative in my thinking at all.

It only appears to be negative to you because you have created your own delusions about what you'd like Christianity to be.

The truth is that what you'd like the religion to be about, and what the religion is truly about, are two entirely different things.

The religion has never been about a personal relationship with God. The religion has always been about men attempting to use a make-believe God to get people to do as they say by laying hopeless guilt trips on them and threatening that God will send them to hell if they don't accept these guilt trips completely and conform to will of the church (not the will of God!)

You keep talking about God, and what God wants, etc.

But the bottom line for me is that I personally don't believe that God ever told anyone to stone sinners to death or to murder heathens. And I certainly don't believe that any all-wise God would do something so dastardly as sending his son to be nailed to a pole to lay a guilt trip on humanity.

What a horribly disgusting thing to do.

You talk about being negative. Excuse me?

The Bible is an extremely negative story. Don't try to push that onto ME!



And what makes you think I haven't done this?

As far as I'm concerned I'm as close to God as a human can be.

I have no turmoil in my life. I'm not suffering from any spiritual angst. I'm totally prepared to meet my maker at any moment, and I have been prepared my entire life. I have absolutely no problems or concerns with my relationship with my creator.

I don't feel any need for any personal salvation. On the contrary, I feel that I do the best I can in a very hostile world.

Any God that would condemn me would need to be a demon, not a God.

I have absolutely no fear of condemnation because of this.

Yes, it's true MorningSong. In order for any God to condemn me that God would need to be a totally unrighteous demon to begin with. Therefore any attempt on my part to appease the demon for the sake of 'saving' myself from condemnation would be like someone attempting to appease Hitler simply because they are afraid of what he might do to them.

Sometimes you just need to stand up for what's just and true.

Besides, this whole conversation is utterly absurd.

The only reason that you feel that I'm somehow outside of God's approval, is because I reject an ancient horrible and very negative mythology that claims that everyone is outside of God's approval unless they are willing to embrace this horrible and very negative mythology.

That's absurd.

I reject the horrible and very negative things that the Biblical mythology claims about our creator, and about humanity in general.

You seem to be suggesting that because I refuse to accept that God is a horrible demon, this God will cast me asunder!

That's even a very negative thought right there. Yet you accuse me of being negative.

Christianity has nothing to do with God. Jesus was not 'The Christ'.

I'm thoroughly convinced of these facts. Moreover, from my point of view these are very positive facts.

We can all breathe a sigh of relief!

Our creator isn't a dastardly demon who would plan to have his son nailed to a pole to lay an impossible guilt trip on humanity.

You should be relieved to learn that this whole dastardly story is nothing more than a false myth that has no more credibility than the stories of Zeus and his gang.

This is a very positive thing MorningSong!

It's means that you're not guilty of having Jesus nailed to a pole to pay for your sins.

What could be more positive than that?

I don't understand why you are so tenacious about clinging to these negative biblical accusations that we fell from grace from our creator and he had to have his son nailed to a pole to save our souls.

If that's not a negative scenario, then I don't know what is.

Please don't try to push the negativity of the Bible onto me.

I'm being as positive as I can possibly be.

The story I am rejecting is a totally fabricated lie that is extremely negative. It places all of humanity at odds with our creator and condemns them as all being "sinners". And this is all based on the totally false premise that mankind was responsible for bringing evil into the world. We now know that this is a false fabricated lie. We know better.

We have learned from Nature Herself that the biblical story is the fabricated lies of men that simply isn't true.

I feel that this is a very positive discovery and we should all rejoice as we burn this ancient mythological book. Or at the very least put it on the shelf marked FICTION where it BELONGS!

I am not being negative at all. I am being very positive!

Let's get this much straight, please.

Christianity IS the problem of the world as of the Muslim and Judaism faith.

The sooner it loses its followers the better the results for peace of mankind.

Besides what I posted above is written by a agnostic person who actually gave it some thought after studying the bible for many years.

This is nothing new for many of the greatest inventors, scientists, and explorers come to the same conclusion.

Good grief after a minute of reading i had a comment... but then holy smokes when i scrolled down it went on and on... sorry not that interested. but what has been on my heart is the fact that people want to dismiss the bible based on timeline history writing... are we not still writing facts about the civil war over 2hundred years later?... guess our history books are lies cause none of tyhe writers actually witnessed it.

Actually even history books don't always record the truth. Often times the story told by one side is quite different from the story told by the people on the other side. Usually the winners end up writing the history textbooks.

As far as dismissing the Bible, I don't know about other people, but I'm not concerned about the problems of timelines. I'm more concerned with the actual content.

I dismiss the Bible for reasons of Content.

1. The Bible claims that man's fall from grace brought "evil" into the world. Evil being death, disease, and the fact that the world is a dog-eat-dog place. The bible even talks about plants growing thorns after the fall of man, where supposedly before that time they had no thorns.

We know now that this isn't true. So the authors of the Bible were caught red-handed writing outright lies.

We now know that plants and animals, lived, died, suffered from disease, and ate each other, long before mankind ever came onto the scene.

So forget about timelines. The book clearly contains a huge LIE upon which it bases it's MAIN PREMISE, namely that we have all fallen from grace from our creator and need to seek salvation and forgiveness for our dastardly sin of bringing evil into the world.

That very premise upon which the whole Bible RESTS is false.

There's really no need to even discuss all the other absurdities in the biblical mythology after that.

But we certainly could go on and point out a myriad of other absurdities and inconsistenice if we wanted to waste our time.

We'd be far better off just putting the book on the shelf marked FICTION right next to Greek Mythology and move forward with our lives to more positive things.

The God of Abraham has no more credibility than Zeus.

That's just the fact of the matter. The Bible is a false mythology.

And of course this would also apply to the Torah and Quran or Koran. We can safely put all those mythologies aside and move foward knowing full well that they are indeed just manmade myths.

This post is about the new Testament.