If Jesus was God ...

Another simple Question for The Christians

If the only way to forgive mankind from their sin was ONLY through the death of Jesus on the cross ( as christians claim)


Then how come God had sent messengers to mankind way before the time of Jesus !!? Why did God send Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc ... to mankind if the only way to forgive their sin was ONLY through the death of Jesus (as you claim) !!!?

Another shocking proof of biblical corruption:

Story of the Adulteress was Fabricated!

The Corruption of the Bible confirmed by proofs from the original Greek manuscript (see the proof by your own eyes..See the original manuscript), This is from a christian website:

See with your own eyes from the original Greek manuscript : Papyrus 66 and the Story of the Adulteress

Papyrus 66

Below is an image of page NB (52) of Papyrus 66, a codex of John's Gospel from about AD 200. The text begins in the middle of the word εραυνησον ("search") in John 7:52. On the second line the sentence ends with a punctuation mark and is immediately followed by Παλιν ουν αυτοις ελαλησεν ο Ις ("again Jesus spoke to them") in 8:12, omitting the Story of the Adulteress. The manuscript has been annotated by a scribe who used diagonal strokes to indicate a word-order variant in the first and second lines, but the Story of the Adulteress is omitted without any notation.

The Corruption of the Bible confirmed by proofs from the original Greek manuscript (see the proof by your own eyes), This is from a christian website:

See with your own eyes: W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03...

Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03

A textcritical complaint

On page 1512, the beginning of Hebrews, an curious note appears, which is mentioned by Bruce M. Metzger in his NTTC book. A later (minuscule aera) scribe complains about a change of the text of Heb 1:3:
"Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"

"amaqestate kai kake, afeV ton palaion, mh metapoiei."








The note probably refers to the change of fanerwn to the standard reading ferwn in Heb 1:3. The letters "A" and "N" look different. The scribe of the note probably changed the correction back to the original reading.

It is also interesting to mention that on the right side an umlaut appears. This probably refers to the word-order change twn amartiwn poihsamenoV to poihsamenoV twn amartiwn.
This umlaut is on the "wrong" side. The question now is: Is it on the wrong side because on the left is this note? This would have serious consequences for the dating. Well, nobody knows for sure...

True Christian Religion 135 [6]

It is known that in the Word God has spoken according to appearances, as that He becomes angry, takes revenge, tempts, punishes, casts into hell, damns, and even does what is evil; when in fact He is angry with no one, neither does He take revenge, tempt, punish, cast into hell, or damn.

All these things are as far from God as hell is from heaven, and infinitely farther; consequently they are forms of speech to express the appearance.

Expiation, propitiation, intercession, and mediation, are also forms of speech to express the appearance in another sense, since these are to be understood as predications of approach to God and of receiving grace from God through His Human.

But these terms not having been understood, men have divided God into three, and upon these three have based the entire doctrine of the church, and have thus falsified the Word.

From this has come 'the abomination of desolation' foretold by the Lord in Daniel, and again in Matthew 24."

When I had said this the crowd of spirits withdrew from about me, and I noticed that those whose thought was actually of three Gods looked towards hell; while those whose thought was of one God, in whom is a Divine trinity, and that this trinity is in the Lord God the Savior, looked towards heaven; and these beheld the sun of heaven, in which Jehovah in His Human dwells.

[SIZE="3"]In-Utero Baptisms Prove Controversial ![/SIZE]



Dan Zembrosky
Editor in Chief
The MQ - Classic MQ: More entertaining than racist grandparents

In an effort to bolster the claim that human life begins at conception and that all fetuses have souls, religious leaders have encouraged followers nationwide to baptize children as early as the first trimester of pregnancy or “as soon as they have a forehead.”

The ritual for in-utero baptisms requires that the child be anointed with oil. As such, a small length of wire with a swab of sacred oil must be fed through the mother’s vagina, into the uterus, and then carefully rubbed against the child’s forehead. After this, a powerful jet of holy water is blasted into the mother’s womb while a priest or other clergy member recites the words of baptism.

Religious leaders such as evangelist Pat Robertson have charged their flocks with this task as a method of putting to rest the question of the fate of miscarriages, still-births and other prenatal causes of death as well as “showing those unholy abortionists we’re willing to go as deep as they are.”

While many followers have lauded the idea of prenatal baptisms, some have found undergoing the actual procedure unpleasant.

Expecting mother Candice Welsley expressed a certain level of discomfort with her child’s baptism, which took upwards of two and half hours and ended with “a pressurized blast of ice-cold holy water.”

Continued Welsley, “though I did feel rather cleansed of sin afterwards, and fresh as a spring morning.”

Welsley voiced continued frustration over the baptism after later discovering she was no longer pregnant.

Clergy members assure Welsley that her child now rests “in the womb of His blessed Kingdom.”

Controversy has erupted around this topic as the AMA recently issued a notice that in-utero baptisms are unsafe for the unborn child even if performed by a licensed physician. The Christian Right responded by insisting that they never had any intention of receiving baptisms by licensed physicians anyway.

“That’s just silly,” explained Methodist Priest Albert Valcemmi. “You wouldn’t come to a priest for a surgical procedure, why would you go to a doctor for a baptism?”

When Valcemmi’s familiarity with the female anatomy was brought into question he insisted that “all priests have a working knowledge of that region.” Adding, “This is just the first time I’ve ever really poked around down there.”

Beyond the conflict between the Church and the American Medical Association, controversy has arisen after the secret baptism of a comatose woman’s unborn child. The midnight baptism was allegedly performed by one Father Victor Roussecous and several other accomplices.

Witnesses report seeing several men dressed in all black sneaking into her room late at night.

“They were as silent as mimes and twice as graceful,” noted ICU patient Theodore DuPont. “I could tell by their clothing they were either priests or ninjas,” continued DuPont, “But I’ve never seen ninjas fire a stream of water up a woman’s love muffin while repeatedly crossing themselves before.”

The debate as to whether the father of the unborn child had the right to request the baptism pivots between those who embrace federal law versus the “laws of God.”

“If we turn our backs on the laws of God, we turn our backs on reason,” commented Pope Benedict XVI on the situation, just prior to plunging himself arm deep into the womb of his great-grandniece in order to baptize his unborn relative.

Several bills are pending congressional approval to help regulate the practice of in-utero baptisms for the safety of the mothers and their children. However, many fear any law that regulates when or if a woman can have a prenatal baptism would conflict with her first amendment rights to freedom of religion.

“Don’t allow the government into your womb,” demanded a clearly upset Pat Robertson during a recent afternoon broadcast. “It is your body and your child. Send those godless politicians in Washington a message and let them know the only higher power you want in your womb is the Lord.”

Another Evidence of Biblical corruption

From: Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies

The book of Genesis
IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Date of Genesis

The book of Genesis seems to be a mixture of early and late material with much editing or redacting.

Genesis chapter one is very different from Genesis chapter two. In chapter one the word used for God is Elohim, while in chapter two Yahweh is used alone or with Elohim. Genesis two seems older than chapter one. I believe Genesis one was added on later with Elohim added to Yahweh in chapter two. It seems that two different stories of creation were added together and then edited to smooth out the story.


See the evidences here: IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Date of Genesis

Errors in King James Version IBSS - The Bible - King James Version

1 John 5:7-8:".. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one..." These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts (fabrications!) The Johannine Comma

Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress of John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel (fabrication!). The Story of the Adulteress


Who Wrote The Bible?

Who Wrote the Bible? Is the Bible the Word of God? Why is the Bible full of Contradictions?

This Channel 4 documentary explores questions at the heart of the great Christian faith in a fair open-minded fashion. It is NOT meant to be inflamatory but informative. The truth one will see is the Bible is NOT what it is thought to be. So what is the Bible? Find out!

Watch this documentary TV film here (12 short parts) YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

The Hidden Story of Jesus

A Must-See Documentary TV Film

Watch it here: The Hidden Story of Jesus

CHANNEL4 Tuesday 25 December 2007 8.30pm

As Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, theologian Robert Beckford investigates remarkable parallels to the Christ story in other faiths, some of them predating Christianity by thousands of years.


Ideas of Paul's Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Pagans YouTube - Ideas of Paul's Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Pagans

Christianity or Mithraism? Jesus Christ or Mithra? — Christianity or Mithraism

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." An inscription to Mithras which parallels John 6:53-54 YouTube - Christianity is Paganism

The Bible is the Word of God. There are "apparent contradictions" because man reads the Bible in a literal and worldly way, and does not interpret into the spiritual sense as he should. The Bible is about the Lord and the church, not about the affairs of empires, world leaders, day to day ecclesiastical affairs, wars, governments, etc.

As a good example of this, man can usually not draw conclusion and common ground between the ten commandments and the two "new" commandments in the New Testaments to Love God with all your heart, and the neighbor as yourself.

This is because the ten commandments, being a summary of God's Law or Word, is written in a style of prohibitions. Man is not supposed to do certain things.

Firstly (in the line of Love to the Lord) the ten commandments dictate that we worship only the one Lord, and that we worship no other God and make no idols, and these commandments correspond directly to "loving God with all your heart." Secondly (in the line of loving the neighbor) the ten commandments also dictate that we not damage the neighbor, by not stealing, murdering, and by not coveting what the neighbor has and not lusting after the neighbor's wife, and these commandments dictate loving the neighbor.

So that, the Word (or Truth) can be written in different styles either in a harsh and prohibitive way, or by a kind and loving way. Also, the Word (or Truth) can be written in stories or metaphor, or in plain language.

The Truth therefore, as it is attuned to different peoples of different time, looks different. It looks so different, that most cannot draw the conclusions mentioned in my example above, that the ten commandments, and the "new" commandments to love the Lord and the neighbor, are really the same truths, only written differently.

More to the Truth being written differently:

"The books of the Word are all those which have the internal sense; but those books which have not the internal sense, are not the Word. The books of the Word, in the Old Testament, are the five Books of Moses, the Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, the two Books of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, the Psalms of David, the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: and in the New Testament, the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Apocalypse. The rest have not the internal sense" (Arcana Coelestia n. 10325 or Heavenly Doctrine n. 266).

"As regards the Word particularly, it has existed in every age, though not the Word we possess at the present day. Another Word existed in the Most Ancient Church before the Flood, and yet another Word in the Ancient Church after the Flood. Then came the Word written through Moses and the Prophets in the Jewish Church, and finally the Word written through the Evangelists in the new Church. The reason why the Word has existed in every age is that by means of the Word there is a communication between heaven and earth, and also that the Word deals with goodness and truth, by which a person is enabled to live in eternal happiness. In the internal sense therefore the Lord alone is the subject, for all goodness and truth are derived from Him" (Arcana Coelestia n. 2895).

If Jesus was God ...


Then what Jesus (PBUH) said in this passage while he was praying to God does not make sense!

Jesus said:
"17 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;
18 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me."

[John 17:7-18]


Jesus said:

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." [John 17:7-3]

So this thread has been here a year now. How do you think it's going? Have managed to convert anyone/ see sense or are you jusr re-affirming your own beliefs.

Just wondering as this has gone a little quiet but you are still posting.

It is NOT my job to convert anybody. I just help to convey the truth that are many Christians trying to deny despite the fact that it is there in their own Bible.

Remember that the worst person is the one who knows the truth and does not follow it!


"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)"
(The Noble Quran 18:29)

Is that not the same as trying to convert others?

It is the free will of the person to choose his final destiny. No one can convert anyone else unless the person is convinced 100% that what he will follow is the TRUTH without any doubt. This comes after investigation, study, seeking knowledge, and using proofs and sensible thinking. A person is said to 'revert' to Islam not to 'convert'. He returns back to the natural pure faith he was born with:

Narrated Abu Huraira : Allah's Apostle said, "Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) but his parents convert him to Judaism, Christianity or Magainism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?"

There is no 'the truth', there is many 'truths' notice the difference? It would be impossible to know if what you believe is truth, but through logic and reasoning we can discern what is definitely not true with what is most likely true. This process is called science.

Anyone claiming to know the absolute truth is a liar, it's as simple as that! Nobody can know the absolute truth. Nobody can know everything about everything, nobody can know everything about anything, what we do know we don't know without error or on all points or in all completeness. Everything we know contains a level of error.

YouTube - 3rd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism


No children are born as 'blank slates' simply because their minds have not matured enough to even understand such concepts, and when the are older they are brainwashed to believe the religion of your choice, regardless of what your holy book says.

That's your personal assumption and you have your own free will to assume it desbite the fact that you got no proofs but just personal desires and assumptions!

I know that you are an 'Atheist' and I got this interesting story to oppose your unsupported assumption. Here is a person who found the TRUTH (existance of GOD) through his well-known scientific discovery:

[SIZE="3"]I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome[/SIZE]

The Sunday Times
June 11, 2006
By: Steven Swinford
I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome - Times Online

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.

assumption? No sorry my friend, it is a FACT that nobody can know anything as an "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" especially something that must be believed on faith.

I don't see any logical problems with someone believing in a god, but there is something to be said about someone's reasoning skills when one says they KNOW something that cannot be proven or supported with empirical evidence, not only do that but they also claim to KNOW details so specific that no one could possibly know any of it.

This is why i despise organized religion. It's one thing to say you believe in a 'higher power' but it's completely different to say not only do you KNOW that there is a god but you know god's name, you know where he lives, you know whats he's done, where he's been, you know his powers and you know his feelings all of which must be believed on 'faith' simply because there is no rational reason to believe any of it. Try this with anything other than religion and see how far it gets you!

I am sorry, but I find it very sarcastic that an atheist -like you- does't seem to follow or even accept scientific approches. When you assume anything you must then prove it with scientifical/logical proofs. Otherwise, whatever you say or assume is just out of your own self desires and has no credibility. Your opinions seem to be based on prejudgment claims.

Did you watch the video i posted? It explains very clearly why no one can know absolute truth, something i have neither the time nor patience to do...

I have no intention to make a decent sensible dialogue with a person who has neither the time nor patientce to defend his calimed assumptions.

Have a nice day.