Who would Jesus kill?

[Guest]

Jesus died to pay a ransom to satan to liberate the dead from death and open the way to eternal life.

I would say He would kill no one but Himself, a price He willingly paid

[Guest]

Infancy Gospels.bullshit. They do not exist!!


There were many forgeries that appeared some 200-400 years after Christ which alleged to tell stories about Him. They are clearly susperstitious nonsense. How on earth can they witness to something that happened centuries before they were written.

The Cathlic Church quite rightly ignored all but those which were known to be authentic and they have become known as the canonical gospels. That means they were written immediately after the events.

Gospel of Thomas, Joseph etc etc etc are all bullshit and fakes

[Guest]

WELL SAID

[Nobbinaiours]

The foru canonical gospels were written during the life time of the authors. St Paul wrote within 30 years of Christ.

You are right. St John the forth gospel writer was 90 when he wrote his gospel. By then the other gospels had been written. They are therefore rightly called 'the canon' and the rule of the church. Their teachings cannot be altered.

All the other alleged gospels were written hundreds of years after the original event. Therefore they are suspect. The infancy gospels are a case in point.

The alleged gospel of Philip mentioned by Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code was not written by the apostle Philip. It only bears his name because he is mentioned in it. He is the only apostle to be mentioned. It is obvious from the thesis he is not the author as it is written in the third person. It is clearly not his work. Yet, it is erroniously called 'the gospel of Philip'.

There are many other untruths about the Da Vinci Code which can be dismantled. The Temple of Zion did not exist before 1957. How can that be authentic?

[mogadishu]

The alleged gospel of Philip mentioned by Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code was not written by the apostle Philip. It only bears his name because he is mentioned in it. He is the only apostle to be mentioned. It is obvious from the thesis he is not the author as it is written in the third person. It is clearly not his work. Yet, it is erroniously called 'the gospel of Philip'.

wasn't the same criticism made about the books of moses?

[Guest]

The foru canonical gospels were written during the life time of the authors.

Most authors don't write much after they are dead.

Every story in the bible, old and new alike, were written many years after the stories they depict.

Just for instance, one of those 4 gospels you mention says Jesus was born in Nazareth. It's an unfortunate archeological fact that Nazareth didn't exist until after Jesus died.

It's pretty well known that the Gospels have many inconsistancies and were obviously written long after Jesus and anyone who knew him was dead. Additionally many hundreds of Gospels were written by Copic's, among whom anyone who wanted to be someone had to write a "Gospel". You're confusing these literary messes with other Gospels that were written at the same time as the 4 Gospels, and others that actually predate those accepted 4 Gospels.

The Gospels were based on many sources, including a supposed Q source which did in fact have true quotes from Jesus himself. Whether it was soneone who knew someone, or a written testament by someone who knew Jesus is open to debate, but personally I'd like to see it found.

The moral of the story is ageless - Don't believe everything you read.

[LamenTs331]

Jesus was just a normal guy livin in hostile times times of chaos ...
U cant have peace when ur living in turmoil soo u do what u have to do to survive but @ the sametime u dont go out and instgate that chaos further by causing more chaos ...Jesus christ is equivilent to a che guevara or malcolm X ...the bible is so distorted we dont know exactly what type of person jesus was because it seems alot of the stories seemed to be stories that the authors got passed down to them by someone else ..Almost like the accounts of jesus christ are based on rumor more so than fact..and his legacy stands on Word of mouth ..reguardless..jesus had a message a positive one@ that ..and one thing is for sure ...NO one then learned anything from it and no one now has still not learned anything from it ..He's fallen into False Idol worship ...Which means manfactured and packaged to be sold to poor impotent souls who will follow and believie without given any kind of thought or reasonin to the stories handed down to them by people just lookin to get rich ..typical capitolistic move ..he went from being a saint to a punchline..and commodity

[Carmine A.]

The foru canonical gospels were written during the life time of the authors.

Most authors don't write much after they are dead.

Every story in the bible, old and new alike, were written many years after the stories they depict.

Just for instance, one of those 4 gospels you mention says Jesus was born in Nazareth. It's an unfortunate archeological fact that Nazareth didn't exist until after Jesus died.

It's pretty well known that the Gospels have many inconsistancies and were obviously written long after Jesus and anyone who knew him was dead. Additionally many hundreds of Gospels were written by Copic's, among whom anyone who wanted to be someone had to write a "Gospel". You're confusing these literary messes with other Gospels that were written at the same time as the 4 Gospels, and others that actually predate those accepted 4 Gospels.

The Gospels were based on many sources, including a supposed Q source which did in fact have true quotes from Jesus himself. Whether it was soneone who knew someone, or a written testament by someone who knew Jesus is open to debate, but personally I'd like to see it found.

The moral of the story is ageless - Don't believe everything you read.

The moral of the story is, "Rot in hell, you heathen piece of S***."

I know a few people who would be happy to whack you so your trip to hell happens much sooner.

[Guest]

I know a few people who would be happy to whack you so your trip to hell happens much sooner.

Go in peace Carmine.

[Guest]

PAKIES

[elliott20]

There are many other untruths about the Da Vinci Code which can be dismantled. The Temple of Zion did not exist before 1957. How can that be authentic?

that's because the Da Vinci Code was meant to be fiction and nothing more. Dan Brown has actually went on to say that the events of the book was a romanticized version of the same legend. The theory of the Grail being his descendant, however, was based on the book "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, which was in turn taken from Pierre Plantard's Priory of Sion.

[Phlyguy]

The moral of the story is, "Rot in hell, you heathen piece of S***."

I know a few people who would be happy to whack you so your trip to hell happens much sooner.

Learn that in Bible study?

[Phlyguy]

The foru canonical gospels were written during the life time of the authors. St Paul wrote within 30 years of Christ.

You are right. St John the forth gospel writer was 90 when he wrote his gospel. By then the other gospels had been written. They are therefore rightly called 'the canon' and the rule of the church. Their teachings cannot be altered.

All the other alleged gospels were written hundreds of years after the original event. Therefore they are suspect. The infancy gospels are a case in point.

The alleged gospel of Philip mentioned by Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code was not written by the apostle Philip. It only bears his name because he is mentioned in it. He is the only apostle to be mentioned. It is obvious from the thesis he is not the author as it is written in the third person. It is clearly not his work. Yet, it is erroniously called 'the gospel of Philip'.

There are many other untruths about the Da Vinci Code which can be dismantled. The Temple of Zion did not exist before 1957. How can that be authentic?

Frankly, no one knows who wrote the 4 canonical gospels. The evidence if sketchy at best. Early Christianity relied mostly on an oral tradition with the gospels having surfaced in writing 70-150 years later. Mark may have been a bit earlier, but not much. Even then, the gospels weren't immediately accepted by the early Christians.

[Guest]

Frankly, no one knows who wrote the 4 canonical gospels. The evidence if sketchy at best. Early Christianity relied mostly on an oral tradition with the gospels having surfaced in writing 70-150 years later. Mark may have been a bit earlier, but not much. Even then, the gospels weren't immediately accepted by the early Christians.

Which side of the argument are you on then?

1) Jesus did and would fight for what he believed in.
a) Jesus did fight at the Temple.
b) Jesus's followers did carry swords.
2) Jesus would never endorse violence of any kind.
a) The sermon on the Plain.
b) The sermon on the Mount.

[Phlyguy]

Which side of the argument are you on then?

1) Jesus did and would fight for what he believed in.
a) Jesus did fight at the Temple.
b) Jesus's followers did carry swords.
2) Jesus would never endorse violence of any kind.
a) The sermon on the Plain.
b) The sermon on the Mount.

Trust me, you really don't want me to answer this.