A Hard Question.

I used to be like you. So disillusioned. So sure of what I believed. So sure of God, etc. .
Thank God he showed me the truth, that the bible is a lie. No, seriously, I believe that with all of my heart (that “God” showed me the truth that is.)

Of course my view of God has drastically changed to the point that most Christians would say that I am closer to being an Atheist (even though I am not).

However, that is something I don’t need to get into to get my point across. You are welcome to read more elsewhere in my blog.

Let me start with an assumption and you tell me whether or not this is correct. You believe that the bible is true and your belief in the bible dictates your course of belief in that it frames your belief and your resulting practice of your religion.

With that, I would like to produce for your examination some discrepancies that I have personally found in the bible. If you are true to yourself, you will at least be willing to research to determine whether there is any truth to what I say.

Let me start with laying some ground work, so to speak.

Now this is something that someone else has said and they do not have supporting documentation to prove what they say (which should be available if you are so inclined to look). So, this is not for trying to prove a fact but more for setting the stage. Regardless of whether any of this is factual, it leads to the possible thought of the day during the time that “Jesus” was supposed to be walking our planet. With this in mind, I will present my question so please indulge me by reading the following first.

Taken from this site -> http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/jesus.html
Mithraism, a religion derived from Zoroastrism, was very popular in Rome at the same time that Christianity was spreading. Mithras was believed to be the son of the sun, sent to the earth to rescue humankind. Two centuries before the appearance of Jesus, the myth of Mithras held that Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds. Mithras sacrificed himself and the last day had a supper with twelve of his followers. At that supper Mithras invited his followes to eat his body and drink his blood. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. Mithras’ festival coincided with the Christian Easter. This legend dates from at least one century before Jesus. It was absorbed in the Roman dogma. Jesus’ attitude often resembles the legendary greek philospher Socrates (eg, the way he refuses to respond to Pilate).
The Egyptian god Osiris was also born on the 25th of December, died on a friday and resurrected after spending three days in the underworld.
The Roman god Dionysus was hailed as `The Saviour of Mankind’ and `The Son of God’. Dionysus was born (on December 25) when Zeus visited Persephone. Therefore, his father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin. Announced by a star, he is born in a cowshed and visited by three Magis. He turns water into wine and raises people from the dead. He is followed by twelve apostles. Dionysus’ resurrection was a popular myth throughout the Roman empire, although his name was different in each country. The rituals in honor of Dionysus included a meal of bread and wine, symbolizing his body and blood. An amulet of the 3rd century has been found that depicts a crucified man (unmistakably Jesus) but bears the inscription “Orpheus Bacchus”, which was yet another name for Dionysus. The 5th century Egyptian poet Nonnus wrote two long epic poems in Greek, one on the conquest of the world by Dionysus, and the other a verse paraphrase of one of the Christian gospels. Unfortunately, we know little of the Dionysus’ faith because in 396 a mob of fanatical Christians destroyed the sanctuary of Eleusis, likely to have been the largest religious center in the world. We only know that the rituals were very popular and lasted several days.
The early Christians revered Dionysus’s birthday as Jesus’s birthday (Christmas) and the three-day Spring festival of Dionysus roughly coincides with Easter. Jews had their own version of this festival (the “therapeutae”) since at least the year 10 (it is reported by Philo of Alexandria), which is 23 years before the crucifixion of Jesus (Armenians still celebrate the birthday of Jesus on january 6).
(The most credible theory of why the Christians of the third century chose the 25th of december as Jesus’ birthday instead of the first of january is that the 25th of december was already a major holiday, a festival called “Dies Natalis Solis Invicti” instituted before 220 AD).
Jesus lived right at the beginning of the Roman empire. The first emperor, “Augustus”, had the title of “saviour of the human race”. The legend was that Augustus had been born nine months after his mother was “visited” by the god Apollo. The greatest Roman poet of all time, Virgil, had foretold in 40BC that a king would be born of a virgin. It was false, but it was widely believed by ordinary Romans that, in the year of Augustus’ birth, the Roman senate had ordered the murder of all other children.
Pre-existing legends and current events influenced the way the official gospels were selected and doctored. Some scholars have even suggested the entire history of Jesus is a myth, based on pre-existing myths that were assembled by “gnostic” jews.
The official gospels were carefully chosen and edited to reflect a view acceptable to the Roman authorities and audience. For example, the official gospels blamed the Jews for killing Jesus, even if, of course, it was the Romans who killed him (for sedition). The earliest account of the life of Jesus, St Mark’s gospel, was written during the Jewish rebellion of 66. It was not a time to claim that Jesus was a Jewish revolutionary. Jesus, in fact, is presented as a victim of the Jews.

By the way, to help you discover the truth, I suggest you download this free bible tool that makes it super easy to find anything at all in the bible. -> http://www.e-sword.net

OK, now my question which will be presented in the form of scriptures first for reference and study, then the question.

(Mat 1:22)  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,(Mat 1:23)  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

So from the above scripture we can see that they are saying that Jesus birth was a prophecy that was being fulfilled. So where was this prophecy? According to this bible that I dug out from underneath about an inch of dust, it originates from a prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. So, let’s look at that prophecy.

(Isa 7:14)  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Great so far so good. That is if you leave out all context of this verse. Let’s see the whole story before we decide whether or not this should be matched up with the “fulfilled prophecy” of Jesus’ “recorded” birth.

Isa 7:1-25  And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.  (2)  And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.  (3)  Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field;  (4)  And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.  (5)  Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,  (6)  Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:  (7)  Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.  (8)  For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.  (9)  And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.  (10)  Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,  (11)  Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.  (12)  But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.  (13)  And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?  (14)  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.  (15)  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.  (16)  For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.  (17)  The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.  (18)  And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.  (19)  And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes.  (20)  In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.  (21)  And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;  (22)  And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.  (23)  And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns.  (24)  With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns.  (25)  And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

Yeah, I know that is a long read but if you want to get the true context of this “prophecy” you need to read what comes before and after that one verse. I want to point out one very important part of this bit of text. Notice that the writer of this text is very specific about when this prophecy will be fulfilled. He doesn’t give some ambiguous day in the future so as to leave it open to “interpretation”, no, he tells you flat out. Verse (16) For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Being that the current kings in the land that thou abhorrest will no longer be there, it kind of ties this prophecy of a “virgin” birthed “saviour” down to what ever the expected lifetime of people were in those days at most.

Say 70 years, of course this is an arbitrary number not really based in reality for life longevity of those times but I am trying to be as helpful as I can to try and make this prophecy work for Jesus’ birth. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work. I am no time scholar for bible time lines but I do know that there was at least 400 years of time between when Jesus was supposed to be born and when the last prophet went around prophecying. So it had to be at least greater than 400 years of time passage since this prophecy had been brought forth and it was tied to a timeline so that it was supposed to transpire in not more than 70 years (again, my arbitrary number, not really factual).

Also, the prophecy was that the land that though abhorrest shall be forsaken of her kings. This could mean that they ran away, died, or who knows but the main part of it means that the kings will be gone.

Earlier in this passage you should have also noticed that the writer actually gives a number, a specific time frame “and within threescore and five years”. What is that, like 65 years or something, It has been too long since I have discovered the fallacy of the bible that I do not remember exactly what that comes up to in our present day english.

So, this is just one tidbit of information for you to chew on for a little while. No response needed. I am not asking any questions and no explanation is needed or required. Certainly you are welcome to your opinion and you are welcome to respond but the facts are stacked against the bible by the bible itself in so many passages and ways that you really do not stand a chance in trying to defend it with logic, truth, or sound research. The only way you can possibly defend the bible is to fall back on blind faith and denial to the truth and facts.

Believe it or not, you can live a moral life with love, kindness and respect for your fellow man without “God” or the bible. The answers you seek are within and have been all along. Even though you thought you already had the answers. Be free my fellow human. 🙂

Now the question. Will you accept the truth even if it turns out that everything you have believed in was based on a lie?