Topic started by Periyar Arivar (@ 161.65-104.adsl.ij.net) on Mon Jan 26 08:46:19 EST 2004.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

"This “Christian” Emperor…returned home from [the Council of] Nicaea and had

his wife suffocated and his son murdered. He deliberately remained unbaptized until his

deathbed so that he could continue his atrocities and still receive forgiveness of sins and a

guaranteed place in heaven by being baptized at the last moment. Although he had his “spin doctor”

Eusebius compose a suitably obsequious biography for him, he was actually a monster—just like many

Roman Emperors before him. Is it really at all surprising that a “history” of the origins of Christianity

created by an employee in the service of a Roman tyrant should turn out to be a pack of lies?"

"History is indeed written by the victors.

The creation of an appropriate history has always
been part of the arsenal of political manipulation. The Roman

Church created a history of the triumph of Literalist Christianity in

much the same partisan way that, two millennia later, Hollywood created

tales of “cowboys and Indians” to relate “how the West was won” not “how

the West was lost.” History is not simply related, it is created…All too often…it

is simply [used] to glorify and justify the status quo. Such histories conceal

as much as they reveal."

"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians—and if so,

how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed?

What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth

there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe

it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."

" Eminent Historians have again and again proved that the 'jesus' of christians never existed. He was a bas.tardised version of the earlier legends and myths "

"There is evidence in the Gospels that there was a cloud over Jesus' birth. The idea of supernatural impregnation by the Holy Spirit of Mary makes a good myth, but for the rational person it is only myth when confronted with the reality of the biology of conception. Even with the best efforts of the church to impose this belief on the faithful, a Renaissance artist expressed his disbelief by painting the Annunciation with a large funnel in the clouds, its long tapered end reaching earth and disappearing under Mary's dress. "

http://communities.msn.com/sweeleysjesusmanormyth

Responses:

• From: Periyar Arivar (@ 161.65-104.adsl.ij.net) on: Mon Jan 26 08:48:25 EST 2004
  
  "The Gospel of Matthew states that Joseph was preparing to divorce a pregnant Mary, to whom he was betrothed but with whom he had not consummated the marriage (Matthew 1: 18-25). It is to be noted that at this time in Judaism a betrothed couple was considered married even though they lived in their own parents' houses, had no sexual contact, and no marriage ceremony had been performed. Thus, if Joseph believed Mary was pregnant by another man the only way he could end the betrothal was to divorce her. It is quite clear in Matthew that Joseph had no doubt that Mary was pregnant by another man, the child within her was not his, and that under Jewish law the child to be born was a bastaard. "
  
  http://www.bastards.org/bq/bq14/jesus-bastard.html
  
  
• From: kubotasan (@ 203.200.19.125) on: Tue Jan 27 05:43:27 EST 2004
  
  When you believe that Hari *fu*cked* woman clad Haran and Harihara sudan, Iyyappan was born and you want to worship that *god*, there is nothing wrong in christians worshipping Jesus,whom atleast Jewish population have seen and now researchers have found evidence of his existance as king of Jews.
  Do not play like this ino sentiments of other religions. If you do not like god (jesus), keep mum and *fu*ck* your own as*s or get *fu*ckec*d by me.
  
  
• From: Roshan (@ 220.247.219.89) on: Tue Jan 27 06:17:03 EST 2004
  
  This 'loosu" mentally retarded Keezhakottam Arunmozhi 'Elavuraayan' has once again started 'its' filth against non hindus under another "Mu(ga)moodi" called "Periyaar Arivar". We all know about the orginal Periyaar Arivaar. eththanai "Mu(ga)moodikaL" aNinthaalum we know who you and your RSS adiyaL thOzahrkgaL anbu (alias aru"ntha"vaal) and karuvayan (alias star) are.
  
  
• From: GRAHAM STAINES SON (@ 64.203.129.86) on: Wed Jan 28 02:09:53 EST 2004
  
  HAIL WHORY MARY,
  
  WHO CONCIEVED, SWEET JESUS P-E-N-I-S.
  
  CURSE THESE HINDUS HEINOUS,
  
  THEY BURNED MY FATHER'S ANUS!
  
  
• From: RW (@ 203.121.47.140) on: Wed Jan 28 09:20:59 EST 2004
  
  Roshan
  
  This Arunmozhi is none other than Karuvayan.
  K.Aru.vayan. As you said this coward is now using
  Periyar Arivar as his latest mask. We know what sort of a person is Periyar Arivaar.
  
  
• From: Periyar Arivar (@ 161.65-104.adsl.ij.net) on: Wed Jan 28 11:05:20 EST 2004
  
  "The Prophecy of the virgin birth appears in Matthew Matthew 1:22-23. Matthew wrote this seventy years after Jesus Christ was born (35-40 years after he died). Up until that point no other text mentions Jesus' virgin birth. He quotes Isaiah 7:14 which was written 700 years before Jesus was born - thus claiming it was a sign, a prediction of the Messiah's virgin birth.
  But there is a serious problem. Matthew states that, due to prophecy, it is true that Jesus was a male line descendant of King David, and presents a genology at the beginning of his gospel tracing Jesus' lineage through Joseph. Matthew, apparently, like Luke and Paul and the rest of the early Christians, did not believe in a virgin birth. There are two theories that I see explain how this contradictory state of affairs occured. (1) The first is that a Septuagint mistranslation of the word "virgin" instead of "young woman" caused the discpency. This means that the prophecy is not that someone called Immanuel will be born of a virgin, but merely that someone called Immanuel will be born. In the original context of the story, this makes a lot of sense. (2) The second theory is that Matthew, writing for a Roman gentile audience in Greek, included popular myths surrounding sons of gods, who in Roman mythology were frequently said to be born of virgins. In either case, it is clear that Matthew's prophecy of a virgin birth was a mistake, and modern Bible's actually include a footnote in Matthew pointing out that the virgin birth is probably a mistranslation. "
  
  http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_birthnarrative.html#virgin
  
  
• From: Periyar Arivar (@ 161.65-104.adsl.ij.net) on: Wed Jan 28 11:15:05 EST 2004
  
  The Virgin Birth and Childhood
  Mysteries of Jesus
  James Still
  
  
  
  Although Matthew and Luke, who deal with the Virgin Birth story, are considered "inspired" writers . . . they yet disagree on minor details. It was to Joseph that the angel appeared to according to Matthew; it was to Mary according to Luke. And the Annunciation (the angel Gabriel's announcement of the Incarnation) took place before Mary's conception, if Luke is the authority; and after, if Matthew is the authority.[12]
  
  At the time of Matthew and Luke's interpolation, Christianity deeply rooted itself in the Graeco-Roman world and had completely separated itself from its mother religion Judaism. Former pagans were converting en masse and brought their religious beliefs with them to the new religion.
  
  Even the Hebrew's Tanakh was forgotten, having been replaced by the Greek Septuagint which translated the Old Testament books into Greek terms and concepts that often were misleading, innacurate, or mistranslated from the Hebrew texts. The Greek- speaking author of Matthew, relying on the faulty translation of the Septuagint, rendered the Hebrew word almah (young woman) into Greek parthenos (virgin) when he wrote:
  
  Behold, a parthenos shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.[13]
  
  The Septuagint had retained the Ishtar-worshipping virgin-temple practices in part by insisting on the physical virgin-birth of Isaiah's prophetic Emmanuel in verses 7:14. The later writers of Matthew and Luke relied on the Septuagint for their references. After reading this passage in Isaiah, Matthew sought to find a way to fit Jesus into the virgin-birth role that Isaiah spoke of, thus achieving a prophecy in Jesus' own birth. The impetus for the idea and the motivation which would eventually permanently seal it into the canon, came from the huge numbers of pagan converts. These converts didn't want to leave behind Mithras and Perseus, who were both virgin-born, in exchange for a Jewish Messiah who was not.
  
  The text in Isaiah 7:14, properly translated from the Hebrew Nevi'im reads:
  
  Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.
  
  This "young woman" may perhaps be unmarried or a physical virgin, but she should not be confused with the role of the Holy Virgins of the pagan temples of Ishtar whose job it was to bear savior- gods. This passage could not refer to anything other than a direct sign of Yahweh concerning the events of Isaiah's time. Isaiah specifically refers to the time and place in which the prophet is speaking to King Ahaz and reassuring him that Syria and Ephraim will not go to war with Judah.[14] Isaiah "is simply saying to Ahaz that a lady who is now a virgin will shortly fall pregnant and bear a son, and that by the time this has happened the political dangers will have been averted."[15] Matthew, straining to provide some kind of scriptural basis for the virgin- birth of Jesus, takes Isaiah out of context in order to support a prophecy fulfillment through Jesus' virgin birth. We see the context-dropping in 8:3-4 where Isaiah's prophecy is said to have come true in that "the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria" shall be plundered by Assyria while the child is yet an infant. These invasions and the resultant booty did occur in the seventh century BCE. How did such a doctrine ever become promulgated?
  
  
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.html
  
  Liberation of Eezham from Sinhala chauvinists,christians,muslims - our only goal. Pirabhakaran Vazhlga.
  
  www.eelam.org/traitormuslims#eastver
  
  
  
  
  
  
• From: Periyar Arivar (@ 161.65-104.adsl.ij.net) on: Wed Jan 28 11:16:13 EST 2004
  
  "It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts"
  
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html
  
  

Want to post a response?