Shiva-shakti and Satan.

[Guest guest]

Do you think that what Xtians call Satan, is accually what Hindu's and tantrics call shiva-shakti?

Remind that there is a lingam-symbol with snakes coiled around it in many Satan images.

[barney 0]

You do not know the difference betweent satan and God. If need to know go to England and look for the dark church which is the church of Satan or Saitan as they call it. It's chief priest would explain who the Dark Prince and if not in US they have a satanic church you can find your answer there. Here is the platform for spritual discussion or as the Xians call the holy sprit also know as the holy ghost. Please do not let me post the nagative part of Christianity which would open a can of worms..

[Guest guest]

 

Guest,

 

Shiva is a Vaishnava, nothing to do with fallen angels from Vaikuntha, asura jivas, as Satan is one of the top representants.

 

Satan is known from the Vedic Earthly literature with many names, Kamsa jiva, Kalanemi jiva.

 

Shiva is responsible for destruction of negativity, not for helping those souls whose heart is pure negative/envious towards God (Vishnu) and His eternal children.

 

Shiva is also responsible for liberating the emprisoned wonderful good souls from the energetic entaglements by the fallen angels from Vaikuntha, known from the Earthly Vedic literature with the name asura souls/jivas.

 

In love,

Frodo

[Guest guest]

First of all, Shiva has fallen too: As Bhairav.

Shiva became angry on Brahma because he wanted to confiscate Shiva's shakti and cut off Brahma's 5th head. Shiva got punished and(I think)

Second, Monotheism has perverted the idea of Evil by combining shiva-shakti with jivas and asuras. Why? Because monotheism is patriarchic and conformist.

And also: Kundalini-shakti is quite similar to Leviathan and the so called "beast" of the apoclypse.

Thus, the monotheist apocalypse might be just a conformist scarecrow to make people dualist.

 

I think you know what i am trying to say...

I was not saying that Shiva-shakti is evil...

[barney 0]

Did Jesus Christ Really Live?

 

by Marshall J. Gauvin

 

Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins to-day with the question: "Did Jesus Christ really live?" Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, of whose life and teachings we have a correct account in the New Testament? The orthodox idea that Christ was the son of God -- God himself in human form -- that he was the creator of the countless millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew the infinite expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the servants of his will and changed their courses at his command -- such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales.

 

Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth. The question is one of tremendous importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of the weightiest significance. The Christian religion has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has stayed the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men and women of the race: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.

 

Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is -- what does history say? And that question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.

 

What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew,The Gospel According to Mark,The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

 

But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.

 

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

 

There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

 

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

 

But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

 

There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

 

Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How do they agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to give the genealogy of Joseph, and both count the generations! Nor is this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but two names between David and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much the New Testament writers knew about the ancestors of their hero.

 

If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!

 

Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another.

 

Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called "Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew's application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious.

 

His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question!

 

After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. The account of his being found discussing with the doctors in the Temple at Jerusalem when he was but twelve years old, is told by Luke alone. The other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this discussion; and, this single incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence? If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the life of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty years of that life? What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world? If Christ was the incarnation of God, if he was the greatest teacher the world has known, if he came to cave mankind from everlasting pain -- was there nothing worth remembering in the first thirty years of his existence among men? The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing of the life of Jesus, before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their purpose.

 

Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence long enough to write the Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the Temple is proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround it. The statement that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing that he was with them; that they went a day's journey before discovering that he was not in their company; and that after searching for three days, they found him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous improbabilities. Add to this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke, surrounded by a period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none of the other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear.

 

The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ's life. What do they know of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the public career of Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John's Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years. The Synoptics teach that Christ's public work was confined almost entirely to Galilee, and that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long before his death. John is in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as to the scene of Christ's labors. He maintains that most of the public life of Christ was spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. Now, between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but the last few weeks of Christ's ministry was carried on in his native province of Galilee, it is certain that the greater part of that ministry was not spent in Judea, two provinces away.

 

John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple occurred at the beginning of Christ's ministry; and nothing is said of any serious consequences following it. But Matthew, Mark and Luke declare that the purification of the Temple took place at the close of his career, and that this act brought upon him the wrath of the priests, who sought to destroy him. Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia Biblica assures us that the order of events in the life of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and untrustworthy; that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and that the facts "show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the Evangelists write." In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined.

 

Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.

 

Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!" and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history.

 

On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?

 

And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again -- why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask -- is this history, or is it fiction?

 

From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false.

 

The accounts of the virgin birth of Christ, of his feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, of his cleansing the leprous, of his walking on the water, of his raising the dead, and of his own resurrection after his life had been destroyed, are as untrue as any stories that were ever told in this world. The miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the imagination? Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells us in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; and Professor Arthur Drews, Germany's greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, analyses these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily have been invented. That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never lived.

 

Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New Testament itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ of the Gospels was not a real character. The testimony of the Epistles of Paul demonstrates that the life story of Jesus is an invention. Of course, there is no certainty that Paul really lived. Let me quote a passage from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, relative to Paul: "It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians." Thus Christian authority admits that invention has done its work in manufacturing at least in part, the life of Paul. In truth, the ablest Christian scholars reject all but our of the Pauline Epistles as spurious. Some maintain that Paul was not the author of any of them. The very existence of Paul is questionable.

 

But for the purpose of my argument, I am going to admit that Paul really lived; that he was a zealous apostle; and that all the Epistles are from his pen. There are thirteen of these Epistles. Some of them are lengthy; and they are acknowledged to be the oldest Christian writings. They were written long before the Gospels. If Paul really wrote them, they were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.

 

In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ's virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation -- the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ -- that he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even raised the dead -- is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them? Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul's Epistles were written.

 

Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus. The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain: Paul knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the Christian world: Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables: Paul is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world -- that is, if the Epistles may be trusted -- is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus.

 

Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And o not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!

 

The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus -- an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament -- first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue.

 

A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ's physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean Milman writes: "The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died," and Mosheim, Germany's great ecclesiastical historian, says: "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality -- a myth.

 

Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common; Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of Christ -- the human element as well as the divine -- is without valid claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a myth. Said Dean Farrar: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false." Bishop Westcott wrote: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous." Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the miraculous Christ cannot remain.

 

If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus. Great writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but not one of them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared on earth -- a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who fed five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word defied the grave and gave life to the dead.

 

John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.

 

Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.

 

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

 

Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

 

Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew -- a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ -- that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.

 

For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."

 

In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.

 

The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.

 

The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."

 

The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.

 

These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs."

 

"But," says the Christian, "Christ is so perfect a character that he could not have been invented." This is a mistake. The Gospels do not portray a perfect character. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and teachings. He was in favor of the sword, and he was not; he told men to love their enemies, and advised them to hate their friends; he preached the doctrine of forgiveness, and called men a generation of vipers; he announced himself as the judge of the world, and declared that he would judge no man; he taught that he was possessed of all power, but was unable to work miracles where the people did not believe; he was represented as God and did not shrink from avowing, "I and my Father are one," but in the pain and gloom of the cross, he is made to cry out in his anguish: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" And how singular it is that these words, reputed as the dying utterance of the disillusioned Christ, should be not only contradicted by two Evangelists, but should be a quotation from the twenty-second Psalm!

 

If there is a moment when a man's speech is original, it is when, amid agony and despair, while his heart is breaking beneath its burden of defeat and disappointment, he utters a cry of grief from the depth of his wounded soul with the last breath that remains before the chill waves of death engulf his wasted life forever. But on the lips of the expiring Christ are placed, not the heart-felt words of a dying man, but a quotation from the literature of his race!

 

A being with these contradictions, these transparent unrealities in his character, could scarcely have been real.

 

And if Christ, with all that is miraculous and impossible in his nature, could not have been in vented, what shall we say of Othello, of Hamlet, of Romeo? Do not Shakespeare's wondrous characters live upon the stage? Does not their naturalness, their consistency, their human grandeur, challenge our admiration? And is it not with difficulty that we believe them to be children of the imagination? Laying aside the miraculous, in the story of the Jewish hero, is not the character of Jean Valjean as deep, as lofty, as broad, as rich in its humanity, as tender in its pathos, as sublime in its heroism, and as touchingly resigned to the cruelties of fate as the character of Jesus? Who has read the story of that marvelous man without being thrilled? And who has followed him through his last days with dry eyes? And yet Jean Valjean never lived and never died; he was not a real man, but the personification of suffering virtue born in the effulgent brain of Victor Hugo. Have you not wept when you have seen Sydney Carton disguise himself and lay his neck beneath the blood-stained knife of the guillotine, to save the life of Evremonde? But Sydney Carton was not an actual human being; he is the heroic, self-sacrificing spirit of humanity clothed in human form by the genius of Charles Dickens.

 

Yes, the character of Christ could have been invented! The literature of the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew. The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.

 

The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.

[Guest guest]

Bhairav is one of eleven forms of Rudra (shiva). Shiva created eleven rudras by the advise of Lord Brahma. This is clearly mentioned in "Vishnu Purana".

 

So this proves that rudra & bhairav are not evil/fallen angels.

 

All demigods sometimes commit mistakes & gets punished by Lord Vishnu. It applies to all demigods such as Indra, Brahma, Rudra, Chandra, Navagrahas, Skanda, Saraswathi, Kaali. So just because rudra committed mistake sometime doesnt mean thar rudra is evil/fallen angel.

 

Telling Rudra as a fallen angel is a blasphemy & a sin.

Rudra is the greatest of all vaishnavas. Moreover, Rudra is soooo compassionate that he blesses his devotees immediately. So we should not say lovely god such as rudra as evil.

 

NOTE : I too for past 48 hours was confused due to some of my personal problem. One swamiji asked to pray to Rudra, as he will can help you in such circumstances. As soon as i prayed rudra, all my confusions vanished. So this proves that Rudra is a compassionate god , who helps all good people to attain good desires & also to destroy negative powers so that we can attain lotus feet of "Lord Krishna".

 

So dont believe in "unauthorised" books. Ask your conscience, it will tell you that Rudra is a cute & compassionate God.

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif OM NAMAH SIVAYA

/images/graemlins/smile.gif OM NAMO VENKATESHAYA

/images/graemlins/smile.gif JAI SHRI KRISHNA

[maadhav 0]

NO.

 

[Guest guest]

How deceptive satan is! He weaves his subtle lies (which can often be 99.99% truth + 0.001% subtle lie) yet the "yeast" of the deception causes people to stumble and fall.

 

Come to him with an open and earnest heart and he WILL come in and change your life... this no other can do for he IS the GATE, the BREAD of Life, the WAY, the TRUTH nd the LIFE. No one can come to Fathr except through him.

When we honestly put aside our pride and culture and truthfully seek the Living God - he gladly meets with us and transforms us - this is REAL. Until you have experienced it - you are essentially living a lie.

 

My friends - I pray for your eyes to be opened and your minds to be cleared for Him, his name is Christ Jesus (or GOD OUR SAVIOUR). Read the book of John - link is below.

 

Visit here and see the truth in your own language.

God bless you and may he bring you Peace and Joy.

 

http://www.greatcom.org/laws/languages.html

 

Also, for the book of John, I recommend:

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible

 

[Guest guest]

Come to him with an open and earnest heart and he WILL come in and change your life...

••yes, jesus teach to sacrifice our lifes to god... many are doing it even if you do not recognize it because you need to be the label "christ" stamped somewhere or you do not recognise the principle represented by Him

 

this no other can do for he IS the GATE, the BREAD of Life, the WAY, the TRUTH nd the LIFE. No one can come to Fathr except through him.

••yes, but you are not able to recognize who is actually going to the father, because you are a materialist and sectarian instead of recognizing sanctity and devotion beyond labels and denomination. So one can go to the father only through jesus or the principle who he has represented... the true spiritual master, representative of param atma, the supreme lord who resides in the heart of everyone. if you use jesus for your sectarian messages and to bother spiritualists this is a great offence to jesus himself and to the lord who is representing

 

When we honestly put aside our pride and culture and truthfully seek the Living God

••so put aside your pride and recognize god in all authentic religion that he has given to the earth for the purpose of saving everyone... not only you

 

Until you have experienced it - you are essentially living a lie.

••and you have not experienced because you are judging the surface, the dress, the xternal culture, you do not recognize who is searching god if he's not labelled as christian... so follow christ, experience real spiritualism, not sectarianism

 

My friends - I pray for your eyes to be opened and your minds to be cleared for Him, his name is Christ Jesus (or GOD OUR SAVIOUR).

••follow christ, he has not come to make us more sectarian and to make us fight between ourselves. So if you come among religious people and fight and insult you are not following christ and you are bringing people to avoid him. Have a good behaviour, show goodness and spirituality instead of pride and sectarism, in this way your master, jesus christ, will be appreciated by anyone.

 

God bless you and may he bring you Peace and Joy.

••not the war and sorrow that you want to bring among the spiritualists and religious people

 

 

Matthew 4:10

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[ 4:10 Deut. 6:13] "

 

satan for you is maya, the illusion and pride to be the only owner of the spiritual truth... so worship god, learn to recognize who is worshipping even if under other denominations and be appreciative, or you will be an instrument of the illusion, maya or satan, who wants the sons of god fighting between themselves to make the materialism prevail

[Guest guest]

"The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person"

 

jesus christ is accepted as a manifestation of sri paramatma, the eternal spiritual master by many enlightened acharyas

 

if he was not real he could not have attracted all this people and make them go more close to the lord

 

this marshall gauvin is a materialist, we do not need to listen to him, we, being in a site specialized in vedas and spirituality, have so many masters and acharyas to learn from

[gokulkr 1]

Yes, we agree Jesus exists. no one had said anything ill of Jesus here. only you people are committing blasphemy by critizing other forms of god.

 

Yes, just like jesus exists, lord ramanuja & Guru Raghavendraswamy exists. Whatever your jesus did was also done by Ramanuja & Raghavendra.

 

As you seek god thru Jesus, people like "me" seek God thru Ramanuja & Raghavendra.

 

Before committing blasphemy you first know about Ramanuja & Raghavendra. After knowing about them you will not speak like this.

 

to know about "Lord Ramanuja" visit www.ramanuja.org

to know about "Guru Raghavendra" visit www.srsmutt.org

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namah Sivaya

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Jai Shri Krishna

[barney 0]

Does God tempt people?

James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

 

 

vs.

 

Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

Is God peaceable?

Romans 15:33 "The God of peace."

Isaiah 2:4 ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

 

vs.

 

Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war."

Joel 3:9-10 "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."

Was Jesus peaceable?

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."

Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."

Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."

 

vs.

 

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Was Jesus trustworthy?

John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true."

 

vs.

 

John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."

"Record" and "witness" in the above verses are the same Greek word (martyria).

 

Shall we call people names?

Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." [Jesus speaking]

 

vs.

 

Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." [Jesus speaking]

Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

Has anyone seen God?

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."

Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God [Jesus], he hath seen the Father."

I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time."

 

vs.

 

Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."

Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."

Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

How many Gods are there?

Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord."

 

vs.

 

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image."

Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil."

I John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

It does no good to claim that "Let us" is the magisterial "we." Such usage implies inclusivity of all authorities under a king's leadership. Invoking the Trinity solves nothing because such an idea is more contradictory than the problem it attempts to solve.

 

Are we all sinners?

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."

Psalm 14:3 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."

 

vs.

 

Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."

Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

How old was Ahaziah?

II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

 

vs.

 

II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

Should we swear an oath?

Numbers 30:2 "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath . . . he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."

Genesis 21:22-24,31 " . . . swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me . . . And Abraham said, I will swear. . . . Wherefore he called that place Beersheba ["well of the oath"]; because there they sware both of them."

Hebrews 6:13-17 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath."

See also Genesis 22:15-19, Genesis 31:53, and Judges 11:30-39.

 

vs.

 

Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . nor by the earth . . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

When was Jesus crucified?

Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him."

 

vs.

 

John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him."

It is an ad hoc defense to claim that there are two methods of reckoning time here. It has never been shown that this is the case.

 

Shall we obey the law?

I Peter 2:13 "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man . . . to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors."

Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." See also Romans 13:1,7 and Titus 3:1.

 

vs.

 

Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men."

How many animals on the ark?

Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark."

Genesis 7:8-9 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."

Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life."

 

vs.

 

Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

Were women and men created equal?

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

 

vs.

 

Genesis 2:18,23 "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Were trees created before humans?

Genesis 1:12-31 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: . . . And the evening and the morning were the third day. . . . And God said, Let us make man in our image . . . And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

 

vs.

 

Genesis 2:5-9 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. .ت.تAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground . . . And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food."

Did Michal have children?

II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."

 

vs.

 

II Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."

How many stalls did Solomon have?

I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

 

vs.

 

II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

Did Paul's men hear a voice?

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

 

vs.

 

Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

(For more detail on this contradiction, with a linguistic analysis of the Greek words, see "Did Paul's Men Hear A Voice?" by Dan Barker, published in the The Skeptical Review, 1994 #1)

 

Is God omnipotent?

Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

 

vs.

 

Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Does God live in light?

I Timothy 6:15-16 " . . . the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach . . ."

James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

John 12:35 "Then Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that walketh in darkness knoweth not wither he goeth."

Job 18:18 "He [the wicked] shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world."

Daniel 2:22 "He [God] knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." See also Psalm 143:3, II Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 12:18-22.

 

vs.

 

I Kings 8:12 "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." (Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1)

II Samuel 22:12 "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies."

Psalm 18:11 "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."

Psalm 97:1-2 "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him."

Does God accept human sacrifice?

Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."

 

vs.

 

Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."

Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."

II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."

Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God."

I Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."

Who was Joseph's father?

Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."

 

vs.

 

Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

 

--

 

This chapter was first printed as a "nontract," a freethinkers' version of a (non-proselytizing) tract. Since it was first published, I have received numerous replies from Christians who think that these contradictions are either trivial or easily explained. Yet not a single "explanation" has been convincing. Most of them do little homework, inventing off-the-cuff defenses of what the bible "could have meant," or devising creative explanations that actually make the problem worse. For example, one Christian, agreeing with Eusebius, explained that "Thou shalt not bear false witness" does not prohibit lies, and that God actually wants us to tell falsehoods if it will further the kingdom of heaven.

 

Many of the defensive attempts are arguments from silence. Some apologists assert that since the writer of John does not say that there were not more women who visited the tomb with Mary, then it is wrong to accuse him of contradicting the other evangelists who say it was a group of women. But this is a non-argument. With this kind of thinking, I could claim that the people who accompanied Mary to the tomb included Mother Teresa, Elvis Presley, and Paul Bunyan. Since the writer of John does not specifically exclude these people, then there is no way to prove that this is not true--if such fragile logic is valid.

 

All of the above contradictions have been carefully studied, and when necessary the original languages have been consulted. Although it is always scholarly to consider the original languages, why should that be necessary with the "word of God?" An omnipotent, omniscient deity should have made his all-important message unmistakably clear to everyone, everywhere, at all times. No one should have to learn an extinct language to get God's message, especially an ancient language about which there is much scholarly disagreement. If the English translation is flawed or imprecise, then God failed to get his point across to English speakers. A true fundamentalist should consider the English version of the bible to be just as inerrant as the original because if we admit that human error was possible in the translation, then it was equally possible in the original writing. (Some fundamentalists do assert that the King James Version is perfect. One preacher reportedly said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me.") If a contradiction exists in English, then the bible is contradictory.

 

The above list of thirty-three contradictions is a very small portion of the thousands of biblical discrepancies that have been catalogued by scholars. See "Leave No Stone Unturned" for seventeen additional contradictions specific to the resurrection of Jesus. One monthly publication, "Biblical Errancy," is devoted entirely to this topic (published by Dennis McKinsey, 3158 Sherwood Park Drive, Springfield OH, 45505.) Even if a defender of the bible were to eliminate all of the above (and no one has come close), we are still only scratching the surface. The bible is a flawed book.

 

[Guest guest]

your aim is simply to destroy the faith in all sacred scriptures, you criticize vedas and you criticize bible/gospel.. the result is that nothing will remain

 

or maybe you want to substitute god with yourself, His scriptures with yours and so on

[barney 0]

You believe what you think is the right path and I respect you for that but at the same time do not be a hypocrate. Be a good Christian and do your service to mankind [service to the poor and sick]not by propaganda and accusing others of false belief. In fact I have more to offer you than what you have but that is not my way. I have too can post the hoax about Christianity but what good that would bring. Be sincere to your belief and do not disrespect others belief. You really do not know what Christ actually said but only through the gospel but what makes you sure 100% those were the spoken words of Jesus?

 

If I produce evidence of otherwise your faith in Jesus will be shaken and hate to do so. Please leave this site if you want to ridicule my faith. Do you want me to go to the Christian site to do the same surely you would nopt want such. Be gone and let us dwell with our affairs.

[Guest guest]

jesus is considered a god's manifestation also by many "hinduist" masters, criticizing jesus you are offending also your own faith.

 

[Guest guest]

You people are narrow minded. Your reactions don't seem to make sense.

I am making a comparison, but none of you is able to understand my point of view.

 

What if i say that there is a comparison between jesus and shiva??

 

You people don't make any sense, you just give simplist conformist comments that don't make any sense.

[Guest guest]

It is for you to seek the truth, that much God has created in all of us - regardless of whether we choose to act on it or not (Our Free Will).

 

There can only be ONE truth - GOD.

 

Jesus declared "I AM THE TRUTH" and proved this through his teachings and his miracles - there is no one to compare to this.

 

Choose truth - lay aside sinful pride (the only and BASE Sin, which leads to disobedience to Gods Plan) in your culture, your land and your Past... It's your future that matters.

 

Jesus even declared that the "High Priests" were the "children of Satan" because of their Pride to traditions etc.

 

You will NOT get to God in your own thinking, strength, goodness, yur good deads for all they are all "as filthy rags" - all your efforts are worthless according to God - that's why Jesus had to lay down His Life for YOU - because only through His sinless life can we be reconciled with God, and this is only possible because He IS GOD - no one else is Sinless.

 

Conclusion: One Truth = JESUS = GOD = Salvation. No Other way - sorry - but intellectual debat will NOT deliver the answer for the Mind is controlled by Satan. You have to be "Born Again in the Spirit" .

 

Be "Born Again" - surrender to Jesus for he "Stands at the door and knocks, and anyone who hears his voice and lets him in, he will come and fellowship with them".

 

Visit here and see the truth in your own language.

God bless you and may he bring you Peace and Joy.

 

http://www.greatcom.org/laws/languages.html

 

Also, for the book of John, I recommend:

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible

 

[barney 0]

The Hindus had many prophets and will have more from age to age. As for Jesus he came to save the souls of the Jews, so, do not confuse yourself because the Jews were given the Torah by their prophets and due to their fall out Jesus came to revive the Torah but he was rejected by the Jewish clerguies but the Jewish peasant accepted Christ as the chosen one and Christianity was born and so did the bible and that is that. But after that very much later the Christian religion began to spread inot other parts of Europe due to the crusade and invation. Any thing thta was new would be experimented by others but even today millions of them although calling them Christians yet they have not forgotten their old pegan religion and are still keeping to their tradision. Go to Itally, Spain, South America and other parts of Asia you will still see converts keeping with their ole tradition. So, your propaganda does not work here. As I have mentioned earlier I do not wish any disrespect to your Jesus but if you still insist on calling Shiva and Sakthi as Satanic worship than I will have no choice but to visit Christian sites to expose what Christianity is all about and do not forget what your catholic priests have been doing to choir boys and girls in the dark. Do you want that too to be posted? Be gone now.

[barney 0]

The Christian Gnostics practiced a spirituality more similar to Eastern traditions than to the Western Christianity we know today. "Gnostic" is Greek for "knower" and it is "Gnosis" or "Knowledge" that they were seeking. Unlike the blind faith demanded by today's Churches, 'Gnosis' meant direct, mystical experience of the divine, which was to be found by individual spiritual evolution to Self-Realisation, and not within the confines of intellectual dogma. The experience of Gnosis was trans-rational and non-intellectual.

 

From the Nag Hammadi Library, the Book of Thomas, Christ tells us "For whoever does not know self, does not know anything, but whoever knows self, already has acquired knowledge about the depth of the universe". Compare this with a tract from the Upanishads, the Indian metaphysical treatise on Self Realisation: "It is not by argument that the self is known... Distinguish the self from the body and mind. The self, the atman, the highest refuge of all, pervades the Universe and dwells in the hearts of all. Those who are instructed in the self and who practice constant meditation attain that changeless and self effulgent atman ( spirit/ self). Do Thou Likewise, for bliss eternal lies before you..."

 

In another gnostic text, the Secret Gospel of Thomas, Christ promises us spiritual fulfilment "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched and what has never arisen in the human mind." This description is not unlike the Upanishadic experience "the Self is devoid of birth and death, it neither grows old nor decays and the accidents of life do not affect it. The Self transcends space and time; what is great is not too great for it to comprehend and what is small is not too small to escape its attention. It is the Self of All".

 

Just as Christ warned us against sin and encourages moral perfection in the pursuit of spiritual fulfilment, so too do the Eastern texts "No intellectual acumen can help one realise it, it can be realised only by those who surrender to it and who make themselves worthy by grace, by desisting from all that is sinful, who engage in the practice of perfection by constant meditation"( Upanishads).

 

The most ancient Eastern spiritual texts, the Vedas,of India, tell us that the process of spiritual awakening by which one attains truth -awareness is called 'Self-Realisation'. The Self Realised person lives in direct experience of reality -- this is called "Jnana" ( a traditional sanskrit word meaning 'knowledge' or 'Gnosis'). Such a person is called a "Jnani" ('knower ' or 'gnostic' ) or "dwijaha" ('twice born'; first from a human mother to the earthly plane then secondly as a child of the Goddess, or Divine Mother, who gives the seeker their second, spiritual birth, Self Realisation, into the plane of mystic awareness- gnosis! ). The traditional Indian texts extol the 'Divine Mother' as the Cosmic Matriarch, bestower of the highest treasure of Self Realisation upon Her deserving children. Many Indian mystic traditions say this same goddess is represented within the human being as the divine feminine power called Kundalini.

 

What of Western tradition? In the Secret Book of John Christ explains that human redemption before the Heavenly Father occurs by the mediation of a Divine Feminine principle, which he calls the Earthly Mother. It is the Earthly Mother who removes the sins of the children that they can become worthy of their divine heritage; "when all sins and all uncleanesses are gone from your body, your blood shall become as pure as our Earthly Mother's blood and as pure as the river's foam sporting in the sunlight. And your breath shall become as pure as the breath of odorous flowers; your flesh as pure as the flesh of fresh fruits reddening upon the leaves of trees; the light of your eye as clear and bright as the brightness of the sun shining upon the blue sky. And now shall all the angels of the Earthly Mother serve you and your breath, your blood, your flesh shall be one with the breath, the blood and the flesh of the Earthly Mother, that your spirit also become one with the Spirit of your Heavenly Father. For truly no-one can reach the Heavenly Father unless through the Heavenly Mother. Even as the newborn babe cannot understand the teaching of his father until his mother has suckled him, bathed him, nursed him, put him to sleep and nurtured him". The Earthly Mother is a divine mediator through which the seekers, the Sons of Man, are raised to the Heavenly Father. Another part of the same text says "Honour your Earthly Mother and keep her laws that your days may be long on this earth and honour your Heavenly Father, that eternal life may be yours in the Heavens. For the Heavenly Father is a hundred times greater than all the fathers by seed and by blood, and greater is the Earthly Mother than all mothers by the body". The Holy Trinity, then is God the Father, God the Son (ie. Christ) and, it seems, God the Mother. The Divine Mother particularly is the means and power of spiritual evolution.

 

The Secret Book of John relates Christ's description of the Divine Feminine as the power of God Almighty. "She is the first power. She preceded everything, and came forth from the Father's mind as forethought of all. Her light resembles the Father's light; as the perfect power She is the image of the perfect and invisible Virgin Spirit. She is the first power, the glory, Barbello, the perfect glory among the worlds, the emerging glory, She glorified and praised the Virgin Spirit for she had come forth through the Spirit. She is the first thought, image of the Spirit. She became the universal womb, for She precedes everything, the common parent, the first humanity, the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit is here described as the Divine Power of God Himself. This power is maternal in its character (universal womb, She, the common parent) and all powerful as the 'first emanation of God'. More so, She is pure (Virgin) and She glorifies purity. So ancient christian tradition seems to tell us that the holy spirit is actually the Divine Mother!

 

One cannot overlook the Eastern parallels. God Almighty in Indian mythology is represented as Sada-Shiva. His state is eternal perfection (Sat Chit Ananda). His power is the Adi Shakti (primordial power) who is His feminine counterpart or spouse. It is She who does all things. She created the universe and the gods who attend over it (for example, the triune Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu). The Adi Shakti is the Mother of all things. She gave birth to the universe and is the feminine power of every deity and celestial being (usually represented as their spouse). The Secret Book of John parallels this "She became the universal womb, for She precedes everything, the common parent, the first humanity, the Holy Spirit, the triple male (Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu?) the triple power (Parvati, Saraswati, Lakshmi, who are spouses of the triple males-or the triple Goddess of Western mythological tradition?)". Thus the Christian mystics understood that the Holy Spirit is the Divine Feminine, the Goddess, the Universal Mother herself. The Syriac Christians worshiped the Holy Ghost as the Great Mother. Phillip suggests that Mary Herself is the Holy Spirit (for who else but God the Mother can give birth to God the Son?). Other Apocryphal Scriptures describe Mary as the focus of Temple activities. Her early life was punctuated by auspicious portents all implying her own Divinity

 

[barney 0]

Yoga

 

Yoga: from the Sanskrit word "to yoke/join" (to join mind, body and breath). It means to yoke with Brahman (the Infinite, the Universal Spirit) via the realization of an altered state of consciousness, thereby supposedly releasing oneself from the bondage of endless reincarnation. It can be traced back to Shiva, the Hindu god called the "Destroyer" and Yogi Swara or the "Lord of Yoga."

 

The goal of yoga is self-realization; to look within to discover the " higher self."

 

Hatha-yoga is one of the ten forms of Yoga. It is in actuality one of the six recognized systems of orthodox Hinduism and is spiritually one of the most potentially dangerous forms of yoga. Hatha means "to oppress." It is designed to suppress the flow of psychic energies (passages on either side of the spinal column), thereby forcing the "serpent power" or the Kundalini force to rise through the central psychic channel in the spine (the subhuman) and up through the chakras (the supposed psychic centres of human personality and power).

 

In Hindu mythology and occult anatomy, the goddess Kundalini is thought of as a female serpent lying dormant at the base of the spine. Kundalini is separated from Shiva, her divine lover and masculine counterpart who resides in the brain. When aroused by yoga practices, she uncoils, travels up the spine opening the alleged psychic centres called chakras in the process. When the crown or top chakra is reached the union of Shiva/Shakti occurs, supposedly leading the practitioner to divine enlightenment and a union with Brahman. The person who experiences Kundalini arousal is expected to experience spirit possession.

 

Physical exercise positions come out of Hindu scriptures. The positions are named after Hindu animal gods, for example, the cobra.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Salvation in the Major World Religions

 

--

 

The word Salvation signifies deliverance from actual trouble or threatening danger. Salvation is the gift of God given by a covenant with man where God acts by grace to save man from the slavery and evil effects of sin.

 

Only in Christianity is this path of Salvation made clear by God's covenant with man through Jesus Christ who is the sacrifice of God for the sins of the whole world. Jesus said in John chapter three verses fourteen to twenty two,

 

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. 22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

 

Hinduism though originating from Christianity, is lost in Pantheism because of the infiltration of philosophies such as Monism and Cycle of Birth. These destructive philosophies are also found in the New Age Movement, and this movement is destroying the Church in the western world today. Buddhism evolved under the influence of Christianity with the suffering Bodhisattva into Mahayana Buddhism, but also lost clarity due to syncretism.

 

Salvation, according to Islam1, is obtained by complete surrender to God, and this thought is also seen in Hinduism in the doctrine of 'Bakthi Marga'. However this is not all, the Ka'bah in Saudi Arabia is linked to forgiveness of sins which is an essential part of Salvation.

 

"Every Muslim who makes the pilgrimage is required to walk around the Ka'bah seven times, during which process he kisses and touches the Black Stone, which according to tradition was given to Adam on his expulsion from paradise in order to obtain forgiveness of his sins. When the month of pilgrimages (Dhu al-Hijjah) is over, a ceremonial washing of the Ka'bah takes place; religious officials as well as pilgrims take part." 2

 

Scholars have correlated the Ka'bah worship to the Sivalinga or memorial stone worship in Hinduism, and these practices are certainly similar.

 

The Arabian character of Islam is quite evident today, and when Muhammad bade Muslims to face Medina instead of Jerusalem, they were readier to support him. The Arabs are essentially descendants of Ishmael and for centuries they had strong resentment against the descendants of Isaac, God's covenant son of Abraham. In Muhammad and his preaching, his followers saw the opportunity to promote themselves. However, Islam is based on a wrong foundation since the bibliographical evidence clearly shows that Isaac is God's covenant son of Abraham.

 

However, the true way to inherit the promise to Abraham is shown in the Bible

 

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:27-29)

 

Jesus said,

 

I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

 

 

References

1 'The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam', by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Quadian

 

2 Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia Vol V, 1982)

 

 

[Guest guest]

Remember this.

Jn 3:16 ~For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but they shall have everlasting life.

Rom. 5:8 ~But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

Rom. 3:10 ~For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

 

Rom. 3:10 ~There is none righteous, no, not one.

 

Isaiah 64:6a ~But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

 

l Corin. 6:9-10 ~Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God?

 

John 3:5 ~Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

 

Rom. 6:23 ~The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

Jn. 1:12 ~As many as received him, gave he them the power to become the sons and daughters of God. Even to them that believe on his name.

 

Rom. 10:13 ~For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

1 John 2:1-2 ~My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

 

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

 

 

CALL ON JESUS. HE WILL HEAR.

HE WILL SAVE YOU. How?

 

Rom. 10:9 ~That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.

Won't you pray this prayer? Just say, Dear Jesus, I believe in my heart that I am a sinner who needs God's love and saving grace. I have heard the scriptural report. I believe in my heart that God loves me so much that He gave You as a perfect sacrifice to die for my sins and the sins of the world. I confess with my mouth that you rose from the dead to life so that I can have life eternal in the heavens with you. I know that without You I am lost. So, Jesus, please come into my heart and be my Lord and Personal Savior. I thank you for hearing and answering my prayer. For I ask it in your name, Jesus. Amen.

 

Lord God, I thank You for the one who, by faith, and upon Your Holy word has just prayed and received of Your salvation. May they know without a doubt that they are saved. And may they be guided into a Bible-believing house of worshipful fellowship where they will be able to grow Spiritually mature. Thank you, Lord, for Your guiding eye upon this soul as they seek to grow closer to You. For we ask it in Jesus' name. Amen.

[Guest guest]

You people say really stupid things!

YOU ARE MISSING THE WHOLE POINT!

 

[maadhav 0]

this is a hindu forum, no xian.

 

in principle, islam is pitted against all non muslims,

and so is xianity against al non xians.

 

so, all xians need to focus on first of converting the muslims to xians. when done, then think of others.

else what happened in spain recently will happen

in your xian neighborhoods.

 

wishing you best luck in wiping out islam.

 

hinduism is not a threat to any one.

so xians need not waste time in worrying about the hindus.

 

could you agree?

 

[Guest guest]

Maadhav, i agree with you.