Is Jesus the Antichrist?

Okinrus,

Supposively the story goes that the young boy was killed by accident somehow and Jesus was blamed. But then Jesus raised the boy into the life and escaped punishment. So Jesus did not really kill anyone.

ANS: Not so fast. that is not what the "Lost Books of the Bible" state. In fact he kills 3 or 4 kids. It never says he brought them back to life or was being blamed for acts of others.

It did state that on one occasion he made the dead boy speak. but that was all.

And you have failed to address the killing of his teacher.

You are trying to misapply something in the Bible to offset the "Lost Books of the Bible" version". Let me suggest you stick to the "Lost Books of the Bible" version and deal with it.
 
closer look

Is it just me or is everyone completely ignoring the blatant lie contained in the first paragraphs of the new testament. It says Jesus was the descendant of the line of David, then it goes on to explain the exact people who passed down this line and it ends at Joseph, then it says Joseph found Mary pregnant. Perhaps there may be a good reason for this, such as sacred knowledge of a secret cult being passed down such as geometry and mathematics, astronomy, or something even more mysterious such as necromancy.
 
Re: closer look

Originally posted by DethoS
Is it just me or is everyone completely ignoring the blatant lie contained in the first paragraphs of the new testament. It says Jesus was the descendant of the line of David, then it goes on to explain the exact people who passed down this line and it ends at Joseph, then it says Joseph found Mary pregnant. Perhaps there may be a good reason for this, such as sacred knowledge of a secret cult being passed down such as geometry and mathematics, astronomy, or something even more mysterious such as necromancy.

I don't think anyone's ignoring it, but quite honestly, I haven't seen it addressed in this thread. Perhaps I overlooked it?

But since you brought it up, what did you have in mind, exactly? Is it the fact that Jechonias of the abominable branch was listed in Matthew as the father of Salathiel, and grandfather of Zorobabel, while Luke replaced him with Neri, so as not to associate Jesus with a king whose line had been deliberately cut off by God? To me, that is the most fascinating thing about the conflicting genealogies. I mean, there is obviously a magical spell of some kind that has been cast on Christians that renders them completely blind to this fact. Even when you point it out to them quite clearly, they still can't see it. Must be those gospel-colored glasses. :rolleyes:
 
According to this page, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was written around 140-170 C.E., while the Gospel of Thomas was written 50-140 C.E.: Early Christian Writings
The page you posted before was specifically on the gospel of Thomas, the one with lists of "Jesus said". The infancy narrative, however, cannot be genuine.
I'm also having a little trouble finding that grandmother of Jesus?

Is it the fact that Jechonias of the abominable branch was listed in Matthew as the father of Salathiel, and grandfather of Zorobabel, while Luke replaced him with Neri, so as not to associate Jesus with a king whose line had been deliberately cut off by God?
I think the genealogy in Luke may be of Mary and not Jesus. I believe that Luke came quite some time after Mathew. If Luke was going to list the genealogy of Jesus then he would have used Mathew's list. http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/Genealogy.htm
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Gladly. A man who lives in the mountains in the middle of nowhere is not your concern unless you care about him.

Yes, but this theoritical man that I created helps me prove that God judges unfairly, according to the Bible, that is.
He will learn about right and wrong from nature, and will be judged by his heart.
Whoa. I'm sorry, but every single Christian I've ever talked to continuosly talks about how being a good person is not enough, you have to become a Christian. Supossedly, the bible even confirms this.
You don't know whether he is evil or not, only God does - and you can be sure He will judge fairly.
This theoritical man that I created? Yes, I do know. He is good; he is not evil. And how can I be sure that he will be judged fairly? Because that's what a moral God would do? So which one are we talking about trusting, a moral god, or the God of the Bible?
Noah and Abraham also didn't know the laws of Moses, or anything else, yet they had faith in God.
But faith in God isn't enough. When Moses laws came around, you couldn't just have faith and be okay, you had you get a priest to do the rituals to forgive you of your sins. And now, God decided that since we can't even do that right, all we need to do is believe that Jesus is part God, and accept him as our saviour from hell. The laws change through time. According to what I've heard Christians say, Jews will not go to heaven because they do not accept Christ. Not even the Jews that follow the old law to the tee.
Jesus died for all mankind, including those who don't know him.
Again, this contradicts everything that I know about Christianity. You have to actually accept Jesus as the Son of God and all that to go to heaven. That's why there are missionaries. Because unless the Pagan peoples of Africa don't hear the messege of Jesus, they will die and go to hell. Jesus may have died for them, but his death itself didn't save them, they have to accept his him as their saviour.
Those who trust God for their lives will be justified through Christ even without realizing it.
Let's see if I have this right. All I need to do is be a good person, and trust God with my life. I try to be good;in fact, my main goal in life is to try to find out what would be the right thing for me to do in life, and do it. Those who trust God, huh? Do you mean, trust God or trust men? Because the prophets of God are men. There are false prophets, this is mentioned everywhere in the Bible. How do I know that Isaiah or Moses wasn't false prophets. How do I know that Paul or even Jesus himself is not a liar? So, if I had clear cut proof that God existed, and wasn't all evil and junk (if he was moral in my mind), then, yeah, I'd have no problem trusting him (probably not with my life, though, I'm not a slave, we are all acountable for our own actions). But since I don't have proof (in fact, I have much anti-proof), I can't do that.
...worry about yourself...
I'd much rather worry about truth and morality and the general well-being of the human race. My immortal soul comes after these things on my priority list.
...who has the benefit of knowledge and still can't believe.
Just using my logic to the best of my ability...

I have already said it, but here it is again. Alot of what you say seems to contradict what the Bible says. If you believe in picking and choosing doctrine from the Bible to believe, then I agree, and I'm pretty sure that I'll be okay on judgment day (if it even exists).
 
Because that's what a moral God would do? So which one are we talking about trusting, a moral god, or the God of the Bible?

God of the Bible is not a moral God. A moral God would not drown his creation because some refused to believe in him or follow his wishes.

It like a sadistic kid putting kittens in a burlap bag and throwing them in a creek. Aghhhh. I hate religion.
 
Originally posted by MacM
It like a sadistic kid putting kittens in a burlap bag and throwing them in a creek. Aghhhh. I hate religion. [/B]

That's kinda how it seems....

Come on now, don't hate religion. Some of it's pretty good stuff. I say, hate ignorance, or hate hatred even. Not all religion is made up of slaves to a seemingly evil God.
 
be careful lostinthought, jesus tried to be tolerent like u are now and look what they did to him. the fact of the matter is that christian and other people emersed in the falacy of their own imaginations wont tolerate people that try to threaten their beliefs. i think it suitable for us to dispise them as they do us..........at least we are able to entertain ideas and still make an informed concious choice to reject it.
 
Originally posted by LostInThought7
Yes, but this theoritical man that I created helps me prove that God judges unfairly, according to the Bible, that is.
No, a theoretical person can only interact with an equally theoretical God. If he was a real person whom you knew, he would have had a chance to hear about God wouldn't he?

Whoa. I'm sorry, but every single Christian I've ever talked to continuosly talks about how being a good person is not enough, you have to become a Christian. Supossedly, the bible even confirms this.
Romans 2
13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

This theoritical man that I created? Yes, I do know. He is good; he is not evil. And how can I be sure that he will be judged fairly? Because that's what a moral God would do? So which one are we talking about trusting, a moral god, or the God of the Bible?
Once again, you can only go so far with a theoretical man living by theoretical laws. If he is a righteous man, he might be saved. But he can't be certain of his salvation until he has heard of it. That means his life might be lived in fear, and God does not want that. But if he doesn't fear God (which is done by treating life with love and respect - whether he knows God or not), he isn't righteous.

But faith in God isn't enough. When Moses laws came around, you couldn't just have faith and be okay, you had you get a priest to do the rituals to forgive you of your sins. And now, God decided that since we can't even do that right, all we need to do is believe that Jesus is part God, and accept him as our saviour from hell. The laws change through time. According to what I've heard Christians say, Jews will not go to heaven because they do not accept Christ. Not even the Jews that follow the old law to the tee.
Israel had a special burden on them, because through them salvation would come to all men. They were the first "Christians" in a sense, because they knew it was possible to attain salvation. But it was a long, hard road. Fortunately, they walked it and we reap the benefits (this was also explained to them in prophecy). They represent the learning curve of being God's chosen.

Christ showed that folowing the law to a tee was not sufficient anymore. It was a measure to lead people in the right direction, but if you don't keep in mind where you are going with it you will never reach the destination. God, and then Jesus, came to Israel first, remember - Jews no longer have a temple, king, priests or prophets. They might still be saved by faith, but once again: how can they be sure?

Again, this contradicts everything that I know about Christianity. You have to actually accept Jesus as the Son of God and all that to go to heaven. That's why there are missionaries. Because unless the Pagan peoples of Africa don't hear the messege of Jesus, they will die and go to hell. Jesus may have died for them, but his death itself didn't save them, they have to accept his him as their saviour.
You have to accept Jesus to be certain of heaven. The goal of missionaries is to restore the image God created people in - to remove their fear. To give you an idea: in Africa the native people believe their ancestors determine their fortunes, and they constantly have to keep them happy or live in fear of possesions and all kinds of evils and retributions beyond their control. When Jesus drove out demons, it was among people who believed in demons - and I can tell you it's a very real experience to them, whatever a Westerner might think. The fear and superstition among these people is tangible. In the past, out of ignorance missionaries and colonialists tried to apply Western/European values to "civilize" these people. But Jesus wasn't a Westerner in the first place.

You can see now how words of Jesus in Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple" can have a very potent meaning. If respect for your parents are only for the sake that they might favour you after they're dead, they are worth more to you dead than alive. But if their - and your own - life is worth what God says it's worth, then evil spirits have indeed been defeated by trusting your life to God.

Let's see if I have this right. All I need to do is be a good person, and trust God with my life. I try to be good;in fact, my main goal in life is to try to find out what would be the right thing for me to do in life, and do it. Those who trust God, huh? Do you mean, trust God or trust men? Because the prophets of God are men. There are false prophets, this is mentioned everywhere in the Bible. How do I know that Isaiah or Moses wasn't false prophets. How do I know that Paul or even Jesus himself is not a liar? So, if I had clear cut proof that God existed, and wasn't all evil and junk (if he was moral in my mind), then, yeah, I'd have no problem trusting him (probably not with my life, though, I'm not a slave, we are all acountable for our own actions). But since I don't have proof (in fact, I have much anti-proof), I can't do that.
Test their words. That's how prophets were tested, and that how Jesus proposed you test His words in John 7:
17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Being a good person won't be enough, but it will keep you on the right path which eventually will be enough. But if you aren't prepared to give your life to Him (He gave it to you in the first place, remember?) - if you try to keep it for yourself - you will lose it. Otherwise you are doing good for your own sake, as if you could save yourself from dying... the very problem Jesus had with the Jewish teachers. Without faith, you will be worse of in this world trying to be good for "God's" sake, than just being selfish for your own sake.

I'd much rather worry about truth and morality and the general well-being of the human race. My immortal soul comes after these things on my priority list.
No problem with that. But the human race can't do anything for your soul, and it will go on without you once you're dead. They didn't give you life.
 
Last edited:
Whoa. I'm sorry, but every single Christian I've ever talked to continuosly talks about how being a good person is not enough, you have to become a Christian. Supossedly, the bible even confirms this.
God is the source of all good so it is impossible for someone to do good work without God; whether they aknowledge the role God plays or not.
 
okinrus,

God is the source of all good so it is impossible for someone to do good work without God; whether they aknowledge the role God plays or not.

And just where was your God in the Peterson case, the 9/11 attack, the sniper episode?

Must be nice to arbitraily take credit for everything good and deny any responsibility for natural disasters, human cruelity, etc.

HOw can one get such a resume, it is a clear winner.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
The infancy narrative, however, cannot be genuine.

Why not?


I'm also having a little trouble finding that grandmother of Jesus?

Nehushta is the mother of Jechonias (a.k.a., Coniah, Jeconiah and Jehoiachin) - see 2 Kings 24:8. Jechonias is a great, great...great grandfather of Jesus. That makes Nehushta a great, great...great +1 grandmother of Jesus. Since the Matthew and Luke genealogies are not in agreement regarding the number of generations from Salathiel (son of Jechonias) to Jesus, I can't be any more specific than that.


I think the genealogy in Luke may be of Mary and not Jesus. I believe that Luke came quite some time after Mathew. If Luke was going to list the genealogy of Jesus then he would have used Mathew's list. http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/Genealogy.htm

Okay, fine. But do you or do you not see Salathiel and Zorobabel listed in both genealogies? And if you are at least not blind to that fact, can you also reason that Salathiel would have the same father regardless of which of his descendants you're talking about? If you can see this much, then all that's left to figure out is which genealogy listed the correct father. Was it the Matthew genealogy, which boldly stated that Jechonias begat Salathiel? Or was it the Luke genealogy, which vaguely identified Salathiel as the son of Neri. Now, "son of" could mean a lot of things - a step son, foster son, son-in-law, grandson or direct, biological son. But how many meanings can you assign to the word "begat"? Considering all this, who do you think the biological father of Salathiel was?
 
Originally posted by MacM
And just where was your God in the Peterson case, the 9/11 attack, the sniper episode?
Probably with the victims. Where were you?
Must be nice to arbitraily take credit for everything good and deny any responsibility for natural disasters, human cruelity, etc.
It's probably more accurate to say God is the source of love, and we are the source of choices for or against love.

A cause and effect theology begs for these kinds of misconceptions. The book of Job contradicts this kind of thinking. Good and bad people suffer, good and bad people prosper - nature is indicriminate, but God isn't. He didn't take us out of the world, or change the world for our comfort, but He did give us commandments to live by. Commandments Al Qaeda et al ignore, and which nature has no mind to keep.
 
Originally posted by Nehushta
Okay, fine. But do you or do you not see Salathiel and Zorobabel listed in both genealogies? And if you are at least not blind to that fact, can you also reason that Salathiel would have the same father regardless of which of his descendants you're talking about? If you can see this much, then all that's left to figure out is which genealogy listed the correct father. Was it the Matthew genealogy, which boldly stated that Jechonias begat Salathiel? Or was it the Luke genealogy, which vaguely identified Salathiel as the son of Neri. Now, "son of" could mean a lot of things - a step son, foster son, son-in-law, grandson or direct, biological son. But how many meanings can you assign to the word "begat"? Considering all this, who do you think the biological father of Salathiel was?
Maybe this diagram will help in your discussion:

genealogy.gif

(From the Genealogies of Christ - J. Atkin)
 
Jenyar,

but God isn't. He didn't take us out of the world, or change the world for our comfort, but He did give us commandments to live by. Commandments Al Qaeda et al ignore, and which nature has no mind to keep.

Either God is omnipotent and the creater of all or hi isn't.

If he is as you would like to claim then he is also responsible for designs that create sickness, dister and violence. Otherwise he is either not in control or insensative and uncaring.

It really is a simple step to hold an omnipotent being responsible for the bad as well as the good. Failure to do so is unjustified by the claim of creter of all and omnipotent.
 
Originally posted by MacM
Either God is omnipotent and the creater of all or hi isn't.

If he is as you would like to claim then he is also responsible for designs that create sickness, dister and violence. Otherwise he is either not in control or insensative and uncaring.

It really is a simple step to hold an omnipotent being responsible for the bad as well as the good. Failure to do so is unjustified by the claim of creter of all and omnipotent.
Decay was the result of separation from God. Creation is running down and it will keep on running down. But God intervened to prevent our going down with it. That doesn't mean He changed the way things work, or the result of sin. It means He lets the good and the bad grow together, and when the harvest comes He will separate them.

If you hold God responsible for everything the joke is on you, because you fail to see your own responsibility. God didn't fail to relieve sickness, disaster and violence - in fact, they are the very signs of the injustice God is delivering us from!

Do you see that if you only had this life, God would have been guilty of ending it unjustly. But now it is nature who represents this injustice and God who ensures that justice prevails; even more than that: no matter how much you share in the decay of this nature (the moral equivalent of this curse is sin), He gives you the chance for an eternal life. You will surely die as nature intends you to if you don't accept it, and then face the same judgement as death.

Luke 18
7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

2 Pet 3
4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
 
Back
Top