Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #269]
That substancially is in my post, which on a rare occassion you conveniently not quoted!

There was no need, as the only point relevant to me was a deprecating suggestion that I'd walked like a dupe into the 'die for a lie' trap, when rather than your avoiding it (which could look like you had no rebuttal) I took it on and rebutted it.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #271]

The "wouldn't die for a lie" apologetic is dead in the water. Plenty of people die for their beliefs. Those beliefs may ultimately be lies. If they are, then they did die for a lie, they just thought it wasn't a lie. Not sure why this is complicated.

It all ties back in with the "we choose our beliefs" apologetic which also fails. The apologetic is that some people knowingly choose to believe something they also believe is a lie. (which is oxymoronic).

We all believe what we believe and some people die for those beliefs. What's true and what's a lie is a separate issue.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #271]

The "wouldn't die for a lie" apologetic is dead in the water. Plenty of people die for their beliefs. Those beliefs may ultimately be lies. If they are, then they did die for a lie, they just thought it wasn't a lie. Not sure why this is complicated.

It all ties back in with the "we choose our beliefs" apologetic which also fails. The apologetic is that some people knowingly choose to believe something they also believe is a lie. (which is oxymoronic).

We all believe what we believe and some people die for those beliefs. What's true and what's a lie is a separate issue.

Why some people opt to die for an ideal is a curious question. There is a human instinct (and it is not that far from religion) to fight and fall for an ideal, the group, the tribe, the nation, the flag the religion the ruler or the cult.

Richard Sharpe: "Rise up? Do you really believe men will fight and die for a rag on a pole?"
Major Hogan: "You do, Richard, you do."

It is all the same thing and it doesn't validate religion, let alone a particular religion.

But yes, there is no real validation of the claim that the disciples died for any faith - claim or rather than deny the resurrection, but even if they did a belief in a spiritual or just Believed resurrection is as likely as for having seen the actual Jesus walking after death Sunday and thus the apologetic is, as you say, dead in the water.

[LittleNipper]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might pretend to be Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

Oh no, atheist have merely been known to murder people and burn churches filled with people --- in this world. They ignore the next. Atheists have been given more rights in the US --- while they have had scripture reading stripped from the educational system and make it nearly impossible for believers to have any influence in select fields of scientific research.

[LittleNipper]

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

Please not again the ole " Thy wouldnt die for a lie " line ! ( I refuse even to call it " argument ". )

And Transponder of course finds nothing better to do then jumping head on into your trap.

We have threads on this very forum that sucessfully refute the TWDFAL.

Yesterday I had to support someone on Twitter who fell also for the TWDFAL and also answered with the " Transponder in Trap argument " ( TITA ).

Now I go to the work of explaining once more;

There were not gruesome biblical deaths of apostles/disciples.
IT IS A PROPAGANDA TRICK FROM LATER CHRISTIANS TO CLAIM THIS!

As for not one of the apostles getting wealthy; HOW DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT?

Peters analogues, the prophets Muhammad and Joseph Smith, absolutely gained material benefits with their Jobs.
And what do you assume from out of what, for example, was payd Pauls missionary ancient world tour ? Do you think Felix and Faustus were his secret sponsors ?

AND NOW you top it all by bringing on the 20th century Jews with their Gas chambers. LET THEM ALONE.
It is enough that disgusting german evangelist pseudo scientist Werner Gitt uses the Holocaust card to make an analogy to eternal torture in hell to effectively scare people into his evangelical religion.

Now you are disproven ( perhaps with a little help from my ole pal Satan ) and I close with one other fact:

THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT CHRISTIANS WERE EVER FED TO LIONS!
death
That is invented Propaganda too!

Perhaps the romans rather bored christians to by having them read Pauls letters.

I know, I know ---- and the holocaust was all faked also.

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might pretend to be Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

Oh no, atheist have merely been known to murder people and burn churches filled with people --- in this world. They ignore the next. Atheists have been given more rights in the US --- while they have had scripture reading stripped from the educational system and make it nearly impossible for believers to have any influence in select fields of scientific research.

And a good job too. Nobody is stopping people doing their religions at home or in places of worship .It does not belong in schools and has no business interfering in science. You may have heard that Creationists tried to get the definition of science changed to be whatever church leaders said it was. It got nowhere in court but they tried.

As to atheists murdering people, I won't say it doesn't happen, but I reckon people is people and people of any religion or none can do murder.

And I don't know of any account of atheists burning churches filled with people. Citation perhaps?

As to persecution of Christians, they were regarded as subversive because they refused to sacrifice to the Emperors. The matter of persecution, while it real, is complex and this article set it out quite well.

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting ... ions-67365

While it may suit Christianity to play the persecuted victim, once they got power, it was the non -Christians who were persecuted, and as you mention the Holocaust, that is traceable to the anti - semitism that ws a direct result of Christian dislike of Jews.

[LittleNipper]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might pretend to be Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

Oh no, atheist have merely been known to murder people and burn churches filled with people --- in this world. They ignore the next. Atheists have been given more rights in the US --- while they have had scripture reading stripped from the educational system and make it nearly impossible for believers to have any influence in select fields of scientific research.

And a good job too. Nobody is stopping people doing their religions at home or in places of worship .It does not belong in schools and has no business interfering in science. You may have heard that Creationists tried to get the definition of science changed to be whatever church leaders said it was. It got nowhere in court but they tried.

As to atheists murdering people, I won't say it doesn't happen, but I reckon people is people and people of any religion or none can do murder.

And I don't know of any account of atheists burning churches filled with people. Citation perhaps?

As to persecution of Christians, they were regarded as subversive because they refused to sacrifice to the Emperors. The matter of persecution, while it real, is complex and this article set it out quite well.

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting ... ions-67365

While it may suit Christianity to play the persecuted victim, once they got power, it was the non -Christians who were persecuted, and as you mention the Holocaust, that is traceable to the anti - semitism that was a direct result of Christian dislike of Jews.

And why doesn't philosophy belong in school? And why is it that contrary theories are not regarded as part of the investigative learning process anymore? It once was. It's hard to imagine now, that Latin and Greek were once prerequisites to enter many colleges. What is the excuse for anti-Semitism today at various colleges and in the Middle East. Please don't blame all Christians for the cult practices of select state controlled groups. And it was not a "Christian" group that murdered Jews during World War I. It was an Anti-Christ group who murdered anyone whom they did like or who they wanted to steal property and money from...

[LittleNipper]

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories.

This looks like you're selling football and other popular sports.
This also looks as if you've given up the debate about bible errors.

None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews.

The disciples were nearly all from the peasant classes..hence they were poor throughout. But Matthew was wealthy by comparison.
No Jews needed to pretend. And person could become a Jew.

I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion.

We are waiting for your answers to our posts.
I don't accept Christianity because I believe in Deism, and there do not believe in an aware or interested God.
I've already said that much of G-Msrk could be true.

Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

What.....the devil? You actually believe in the devil?
You still are not answering our posts!

You can reason all you wish regarding the existence of GOD, but unless GOD is interactive, there doesn't seem to be much of a point in your ponderance.

[oldbadger]

You can reason all you wish regarding the existence of GOD, but unless GOD is interactive, there doesn't seem to be much of a point in your ponderance.

Exactly!
You got that right!
God is not interactive, but humanity can ponder about past religions as much as it pleases. That's our privilege.
Researching early Christianity is most valuable, imo. It teaches us so much about the imposts, deceptions and politics of the early churches, just for a start.

[JehovahsWitness]

God is not interactive ...

That is like saying a woman is not sexual because she wont have sex with you! Nobody can prove God does not interact with ANYONE, it is an unprovable assumption.

Just sayin'


JW