What if there is no abrahamic god?

Now you are the one lying. Nowhere did I make that statement. I said the claims in Luke SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE ROMAN CENSUS were lies.

What is up with Christians and their Lying for Jesus today?

 

Haha that's yet another bit of guesswork..
They may well have been written soon after Jesus's death, but didn't actually get published until decades later.
For example my Documents folder on my PC is full of sensational articles I've written on a variety of subjects over many years, but as yet I've never bothered taking them to a publisher..

 

There you go calling Luke a liar yet again..

 

In that specific regard, he was lying. There is zero evidence to support his claims and TONS of evidence directly contradicting them.

Or was Luke just an early adopter of "alternative facts"?

 

Aren't you rather getting yourself in a twist. Luke tells us that Jesus was born in Nazareth and uses a supposed census to get Jesus to Bethlehem. That's not lying, oops wrong?
The genealogies of both Luke and Matthew are no reason to suppose Jesus was a 'Messiah' In Matthews line is a King whose family is excluded from the line of Right to the Throne of David. Oh. He also misses out 3 other kings. Luke gives us a line back through Nathan. The Royal Line goes back through Solomon. Nathan tried to trick Solomon - so was excluded.
Oh dear.

There is no record of a singular, empire-wide census instituted by Augustus. The one in Judea 8BCE is very doubtful as a Roman Census of all peoples. Client Kingdoms, as Herods was called, held their own. Augustus himself, in his Deeds of Augustus, says that he held a census of ROMANS in what we call 8BCE. If there was one in 6CE in the Province of Judea it would not have affected Jesus, as Joseph lived in Galilee, a different province. Censuses took place province by province.

.

You have his birth certificate? Jesus was the son of the carpenter from Nazareth. Joseph travelled by donkey 90 miles each day - and back? Oh. Forgive me. He moved there. Forget what I said earlier about going back to those times. You wouldn't survive five minutes. Families were important. Poor people rarely moved far from the parental village. And sons took over the family 'business'. Remember James and John, sons of Zebedee. They would have learnt fishing from their father. Jesus learnt carpentry from his father.

If Luke's story was correct and Bethlehem was Davids family town, then hundreds of thousands of Davids descendants would have come from all over the Roman Empire to Bethlehem. Chaos would have ensued as this would have applied to every person - Jew or not - to attend the family village.

The problem is that some censuses were on Romans - not other peoples. .

 

You've done this, you've done that. Yeah. We get it.

HaHa, that's another bit of guesswork.



PUBLISHED? Don't go back two thousand years, you'd get a shock.

 

And studying the NT will ? The Church is still divided over the path to salvation.

Protestants believe "Salvation by faith alone" Orthodox and Catholic believe there is a works component.

If works is a component (as the majority of Christianity believes) then studying the OT will help get one saved

 

Of course there is proof that at least some of the Gospel writers were liars. If this was not the case then we would not have different versions of various Gospel stories.

Jesus last words for example. The author of Mark and Matt have Jesus saying " My God My God, why have you forsaken me"

Church dogma has changed by the time the author of John and Luke are writing such that Jesus calling out God will not do. They then use artistic license aka (Pious Fraud) and change what the last words of Jesus were.

Pious fraud was common in the first century. It is not like this is some secret.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Matt uses Mark as a source document but, he can not resist engaging in a little Pious Fraud.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

You can find these quotes in the "analogy to Mark" section of the linked page.

 

It's a bit much to accuse Luke of deliberately lying! Why would he want to lie?
He was an educated doctor and went on a fact finding mission to get at the truth to the best of his ability by interviewing eyewitnesses etc, so if they gave him conflicting facts it wasn't his fault..
He begins his gospel with the words-
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed."

 

Good for you mate, you acknowledge Luke might have got his dates wrong, rather than that he was deliberately lying..
PS- as an Old Testament historical expert can you clear something up and tell us who Zechariah was talking about in 500 BC here?-
“Behold, your king comes to you, triumphant and victorious. He is humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass.” (Zech 9:9)
I mean, if he wasn't referring to Jesus, who on earth was he referring to?
Have any other "kings" ever ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey?
Or are we still waiting for somebody to do it?

"Finding a young donkey, Jesus sat on it, as it is written: “Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion. See, your King is coming, seated on the colt of a donkey" (John 12:13-15)

 

Haha first you implied the gospel-writers were liars, now you're implying the same thing about me, so I'm in good company..
Like I've said before, your years as a church organist in organised religion have been bad for you, maybe you picked up a demon of suspicion and mistrust in there-
"He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Proverbs 13:20)
Personally I've tried a few churches in the past but quickly walked out because I could sense the bad vibes in there. I know there are good churches around but I haven't found one I feel comfortable at.

 

I don't care what organised religion says, because Jesus said-
"You have one teacher, me" (Matt 23:10)
and he's easy enough to understand-
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)
Here's the key to salvation-
Jesus said - "The work God requires is to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28 )
Running with the big herds of organised religion won't do us a bit of good if they're on the wrong track-
"Work out your own salvation.." (Philip 2:12 KJV)
Basically we should do whatever floats our boat, for example if monks and nuns feel that shutting themselves away from the world in monasteries and convents helps them get closer to God that's fine, and at the other extreme if some people feel closer to God by working hard in the world, that's fine too..
PS- As regards the Old T, it's full of interesting stuff including a truckload of prophecies foretelling the arrival of Jesus, but we know the OT alone won't save us, otherwise God wouldn't have sent Jesus to give us the New T..

 

What is it with you atheists such as yourself, Questerr and Trevor going around calling people liars? I hope you're not cracking up..
WIKI- "Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis characterised by a pervasive and long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder

The gospel-writers simply saw things from different angles, that's all, for example when a UFO landed on this school playing field the kids drew pics of it which look different to one another, but the fact remains a UFO did land, or were they all lying?..

 

Usual verse out if context. Typical. Did Jesus fulfil the rest of the prophecy? The answer is emphatically NO. Read the whole chapter and tell me where the chariots of Ephraim were cut off3And Tyre built a fortification for herself, and she gathered silver like dust and gold like the mire of the streets.
4Behold, the Lord shall impoverish her, and He shall smite her wealth in the sea, and she shall be consumed by fire. :
5Ashkelon shall see and fear, and Gaza-and she shall quake violently-and Ekron, for the one to whom she looked was ashamed. And a king was lost from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited.
6And the strangers shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.
7And I will remove his blood from his mouth, and his detestable things from between his teeth. And it, too, shall remain to our God: and it shall be like a studyhall in Judah; and Ekron, like Jebusi.
8And I will encamp beside My house against a garrison of those passing by and of those returning. And no oppressor shall pass by them, for now I have seen with My eyes.

Where was all this?

All you've done is take a verse out of its context, like Christianity has done. In fact Zechariah 9:1-8 (above) could be compared to the events of Alexander the Greats conquest.

The Jews always had the image of a Messiah, a human male who would lead them to victory over their enemies. This has influenced the depiction of Jesus in the NT.

Every year the Jews paraded though Jerusalem at Sukkot in this manner. Matthew uses this to announce Jesus by bringing it from Autumn to Spring when the necessary branches are available.

And yes, Solomon rode into Jerusalem as King. 1 Kings 1:38-49.

 

Perhaps those vibes come from yourself.

I implied they were mistaken to satisfy your problem with the word 'liar'. It's pretty clear that throughout the Bible 'lies'/ 'deliberate exaggerations' have been made to enhance situations both in the OT and in the NT.
There are things written in both which may have fooled the ignorant years ago, and even today, but are obviously 'deliberate exaggerations' to enhance things. 2,500,000+ hebrews exiting Egypt without a word anywhere in History, fighting the Amalekites, who appear in no history book - except thoe relying on the Bible.
A million man Ethiopian army marching 1000 miles is clearly ludicrous, and then to be beaten by 40,000 Israelites. Another battle where 500,000 men fight 800,000 men. Armies from 2 small states whose total population probably didn't exceed 1,000,000 persons. 5,000 men meeting at short notice in the desert and being fed by 5 loaves and 2 small fish.

The Bible is full of such things.

 

He lied because he needed to have Jesus fulfill prophecy and there was zero reason for Jesus of Nazareth to have been born in Bethlehem. So he fabricated one.

 

Yes, around 900 BC.
So when Zechariah uttered his prophecy 400 years later in about 500 BC he couldn't have been referring to Solomon could he?..

 

The Old T, although interesting, should always play second fiddle to the New T-
"The covenant of which Jesus is mediator is superior to the old one" (Hebrews 8:6)
so let's not get too bogged down in it.
As for the New T, the early Christians were severely hassled as they tried to spread the word, so can you explain to us what their motive was, considering they weren't in it for money or power?
"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit...Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them, not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (2 Cor 2:17,1 Peter 5:2-3)

 

But mate,why would he publish a blatant lie and leave himself open to the risk of being ridiculed and discredited by the snooty priests? I mean, all the priests had to do would have been to go around issuing proclamations that Luke was a liar for cooking up a Bethlehem story. Obviously they knew there was some truth in it..

 

Why did Mohammad blatantly lie?

Why did the writers of the Bhagavad Gita?

Why did the writers of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Why would any of them lie? Do you believe all of their stories are true?

There is zero truth in the story of the Roman census in Luke. Here's a good reason why those "snooty priests" did go around proclaiming the story was false:

THEY WERE (*)(*)(*)(*)ING DEAD. The Gospel of Luke didn't even get written until after the destruction of the Temple and the Roman decimation of Palestine that resulted in Jews fleeing all over the place.

 

Haha is there ANYBODY in your view who wasn't lying?..
Luke had a good steady job as a doctor, so can you tell us why on earth he'd want to sit down and write a book of lies?
As for the other "religions" you mentioned, they're just mickey-mouse "religions" and don't count..

 

Considering "Luke" likely isn't the one who wrote the Gospel.

Why did Mohammad lie? If he didn't, we are you not a Muslim given that Quran must therefore be the truth?

You seem to have a very hard time applying standards equal and love to give Christianity special exceptions.

Also, I notice you totally ignored my point that Luke wasn't even written until after the Temple was already destroyed and the Jews flung all over the world.

 

Only so far an atheist. I cannot find my faith on one God or his profit Jesus Christ.....

 

I will The Devil exist and Swedish Lucifer and Arabic Devil. No evil Turks.

- - - Updated - - -

Devil in muslim hell can speak arabic.

 

1- Christianity is the only one with the Son of God himself in it, so all the rest aren't worth a plugged nickel..
2- 65 AD is the approx date when Luke's gospel was written, but so what?