Jesus Christ Landed On The Moon: Fact or Fiction?

[LoungeMachine]

The Resurrection. Did it really happen?




By Sandi Dolbee
UNION-TRIBUNE RELIGION & ETHICS EDITOR
March 27, 2005



From "The Resurrection" by Matthias Grũnewald, 1515.

Great artists paint it. Famous composers produce masterpieces inspired by it. Leading theologians write books about it. The event stands alone as a single word, without need of description or definition.

Resurrection.

Today, on Easter Sunday, Christians celebrate the defining moment of their faith: a crucified Jesus rising from the dead, living proof of his divinity.

But did it really happen?

And how much does it matter for a religion that has grown from a band of disciples to the world's largest body, claiming a third of the population? Roughly 7 of 10 Americans identify themselves as Christians in surveys.

In U.S. opinion polls, the literal account of Jesus' Resurrection wins in a landslide. But religion is not a contest and Easter isn't an Election Day where one group of Christians wins out over another.





There are no photographs of an empty tomb. No home videos of Doubting Thomas checking Jesus' wounds. And there's no "CSI: Jerusalem." Instead, there is lingering disagreement over what was written centuries ago in Scriptures and what was meant.

"The classic Christian understanding of the Resurrection is that it did happen, it literally happened in a way that remains fundamentally mysterious," said the Rev. Lawrence Bausch, rector of Holy Trinity Episcopal Church in Ocean Beach.

Bausch turns to a famous passage in the New Testament from the apostle Paul, who writes that without the raising of Christ, all their beliefs are in vain. "In the end, if there is no Resurrection, then when you're dead you're dead," is how Bausch puts it. "There is nothing to be hoped for."

But there are Christians who simply don't buy into the physical Resurrection account.

Led by revisionist Jesus scholars such as Marcus Borg of Oregon State University, a movement of people view the biblical stories as metaphors on how to live life today. What is emerging, writes Borg in his 2003 book, "The Heart of Christianity," is "a new way of seeing Christianity and what it means to be Christian."

The Rev. Laurel Gray, a retired Lutheran minister who lives in El Cajon, is one of these adherents. "There are a lot of people, I would say, who are coming out of the closet, so to speak, and saying, 'Let's talk about this,' " said Gray, who leads an informal, ecumenical group of questioning seekers called the Church Alumni Association of San Diego.

For Gray, the Resurrection was spiritual, not physical. He says believing this doesn't diminish his faith. "I consider myself a Christian because I believe in the things Jesus taught," he added. Things like loving your enemy. "He introduced me to some principles that I think no one else has."

But for other Christians, if there is no bodily, physical rising, then Jesus runs the risk of becoming any other person who dies and lives on in our memories. "The enormity of the Resurrection is that he really does conquer death," said Bernadeane Carr, a Roman Catholic theologian and director of the Diocesan Institute, a San Diego diocese training program for religion teachers in Catholic schools.

It's a question of eternity. "The essence of Easter, of the celebration of Christ's Resurrection, is the grounding of our hope of eternal life," Carr said.

In traditional Christian theology, Jesus' death was a holy ransom, his life sacrificed for the sins of others, so that they might have eternal life. The Resurrection sealed the deal and a new religion was born, with Jesus as Messiah, Savior, the Christ.

Even nearly 2,000 years later, the miracle of the Resurrection is so powerful for followers that they leave their homes in darkness to celebrate with the sunrise from the beach at Coronado to the cross at Mount Helix.

"Without the Resurrection, there would be no reason to follow Jesus because that would mean there would be no eternal life," said Greg Allsup, who attends Calvary Chapel in El Cajon and leads a young adult group there. In other words: It's Easter, for Heaven's sake.

The Rev. M.A. "Mac" Collins, rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in City Heights, would rather talk about taking Jesus' teachings more seriously – from his biblical examples of inclusiveness to his exhortations to care for your neighbors.

"If we did more of that and less worrying about our symbols and how they are perceived in society, perhaps we would be a greater witness of the Resurrection and our faith," Collins said.

Suzie Knapp echoes that thought when she talks about helping her students at the Academy of Our Lady of Peace in North Park "get it from the inside out."

Knapp, campus minister and religious studies teacher at the Catholic girls high school, agrees that "sometimes people really get hung up on the details of resurrected body." In other words: Don't debate it, live it.

Still, Knapp leans toward the bodily Resurrection. After all, the Bible tells of Jesus appearing to his followers after his death, talking with them and eating with them.

The literal biblical account is good enough for Pastor Jeremy McGinty, lead minister of theMovement, a 3-year-old contemporary evangelical congregation in San Marcos. "The truth of God's word is black and white," McGinty said.

Besides, he asks, where's the body? "If they could have found the body of Christ, the movement of Christianity would have been gone."

Is it any wonder Easter is the holiest day on the Christian calendar? That day is today for western Christianity; Eastern Orthodox Christians celebrate Easter on May 1 this year.

"To me, it's absolutely huge," McGinty said. "To me, it's life or death. That's what's at stake."

Next spring, probably just in time for Easter 2006, the Rev. John Fanestil plans to come out with a book about Christianity and death. If Christians really believe in the meaning of the Easter message, Fanestil, senior pastor of La Mesa First United Methodist Church, argues they should be less fearful of death – and more trusting that it will be a spiritual communion with God.

As for Jesus' Resurrection, Fanestil says he can live with the mystery. "I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, but I don't know what that looked like or felt like to Jesus' disciples," Fanestil said. "I can't answer the question of how it happened."

He suggests Christians push past the dissecting. "I think that trying to answer the 'how' questions will drive us crazy." Ultimately, he adds, "the question is, will we live our lives as those who trust that life will win out over death?"

[Jesus Christ]

Verily this I say unto you..... that if the Son of Man did not rise again on the third day, then what would hath been the point of My crucifixion.

For one cannot conquer death by remaining dead. And so as it was written, did I, the Messiah roll away the stone on that morning.

And oh my Dad, did I ever needeth a cup of coffee!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ


And oh my Dad, did I ever needeth a cup of coffee!

Thank God there were 3 Starbucks within 5 kilometers.....:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The Resurrection. Did it really happen?

Yes, it did.





But there are Christians who simply don't buy into the physical Resurrection account.



Then they are really not Christians. Period.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yes, it did.



.

Prove it.

[rustoffa]

Carbon 14 will occasionally classify a week old newspaper as some sort of volcanic crust.

[YAH'WEH]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
And oh my Dad, did I ever needeth a cup of coffee!


Verily, My Son, that is why I createth the bean!
;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by YAH'WEH
Verily, My Son, that is why I createth the bean!
;)

Did You createth the marijuana plant?. The poppy, coca leaf, shrooms?

always been curious about that:cool:


Or are they the "devil's" creation....

[YAH'WEH]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Did You createth the marijuana plant?. The poppy, coca leaf, shrooms?


Of course, I created All. Lucifer can create nothing.

[Warham]

Faith is required.

I've always said, even if Jesus Christ appeared now, performing miracles in front of everyones eyes, most would still deny him being the Son of God.

It happened then, and it would happen now.

[Hardrock69]

There is actually just as much evidence that Jesus was not even crucified as that he was.

Not only that, he was not the only prophet to die and be resurrected on the third day.

It was a fairly common thing back in ancient times that if you were a prophet you had to be able to work miracles, etc., and there were many prophets, "Gods", etc. in the centuries BEFORE Christ that accomplished many of the same things attributed to Jee-ZUSSSssss-AHHH...

So Jesus is not unique, nor is he any more the son of God than anyone else is.

As a matter of fact, right now he is just a pile of dust somewhere in the Middle East.

[Little_Skittles]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian


Then they are really not Christians. Period.

You got it. This happend if you don't believe it get another religion you ain't christian. Says something in the bible about absolute blind faith, i think this applies to that.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
You got it. This happend if you don't believe it get another religion you ain't christian.

How "Christian" of you :rolleyes:

[Little_Skittles]

just statin facts.

[Samsonite]

I personally believe that his body was stolen...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
just statin facts.

No, you're not "stating" facts. You need to look up the word fact again.

Speaking of which, isn't it a "fact" you're actually a 40+ year old woman using an alias as a 16 year old?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Samsonite
I personally believe that his body was stolen...


Most likely.

[DLR'sCock]

It's a shame so many miss the point...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Most likely.

Prove it.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Prove it.


Notice I said "most likely"

YOU however, stated it DID HAPPEN

How do you know?

you dont. you believe.

[Jesus Christ]

But I knoweth :cool:

[vanzilla]

I think Warham and Little Skittles (or is it lms2? - whatever) have a point. If you have faith, no one can alter your beliefs.

I however am not a Christian and have problems with many aspects of organized religion in general - the Bible in particular.

For example - this whole crucifiction debate. The Bible contradicts itself on several occasions on what was seen at the tomb:

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

I could go on, but I'm sure I've lost most everyone's attention by now. Again - I'm not bashing Christians - I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe in.

But in my world I prefer to base my beliefs on science and history. The 2 things the Bible are lacking.

[Jesus Christ]

My son, ye must remember that the 4 gospels were written by 4 different men, and of the 4, only John was present at My tomb shortly after My Resurrection. So why trouble thyself with trivial details such as whether it was one or two angels. Mary and the other women were in a bit of shock when they found Me missing, as were Peter and John when they arrived. In all the confusion, it's not surprising that someone might have forgotten to count angels. :angel: :angel:

[ashstralia]

Originally posted by Warham
Faith is required.

I've always said, even if Jesus Christ appeared now, performing miracles in front of everyones eyes, most would still deny him being the Son of God.

It happened then, and it would happen now.

that's a pretty accurate observation, warham.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
You got it. This happend if you don't believe it get another religion you ain't christian. Says something in the bible about absolute blind faith, i think this applies to that. Blind faith, aka stupidity!

[Warham]

Originally posted by ashstralia
that's a pretty accurate observation, warham.

Thanks, ash.

[ELVIS]

Well, I don't think Jesus is comming back to perform miracles...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Notice I said "most likely"

YOU however, stated it DID HAPPEN

How do you know?

you dont. you believe.

I do believe.

I KNOW!

You don't

A pity. :(

Have a safe trip.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
You got it. This happend if you don't believe it get another religion you ain't christian. Says something in the bible about absolute blind faith, i think this applies to that.

Still hiding behind a 16-year-old girl/alias, eh lms2? Disgusting!:rolleyes:

[Jesterstar]

ACtually if people researched. The story of Jesus and the comming age of christianity came to be because the rulers feared losing power. Paganism was losing in popularity so they needed a new way to control the populations. I beleive that it was constantine that adopted christianity as the new relegeion. Not just that but JESUS was voted on as the subject of the bible. It is documented that THE CHATHOLIC CHURCH has writtings of JESUS but did not publish them.

My personal Beleif is that JESUS was a real person. In Fact he was a KING.............KING OF THE JEWS.

http://www.awitness.org/essays/notdavid.html

He said himself he was the son of David. Text can easily be manipulated. By cutting down the son of David thing down to only a few mentions. The average christian would over look the Son of David stuff and pay more attention to the Son of God. Which i am not sure. But David I think perhaps thought of himself as a GOD. Think of the STAR OF DAVID in the Jewish Religeion.

Alot of times (I'm not trying to insult anyone) when people throw faith into God and the idea of Jesus they are just feeding the child in them that wants to be a child and have a mommy and daddy. That is why christianity is so successful.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I do believe.

I KNOW!

You don't

A pity. :(

Have a safe trip.

Your feeding the child inside you. You'll consider these statements a attack on your faith. But facts are facts. Other than a movie by Mel Gibson. You never saw him suffer. You weren't there. Your basing this on years of mental conditioning and Beleif. Beleive all you want. But you can't say that you know just because you know. There has to be a foundation of reality.

[WelshJon]

I've always said, even if Jesus Christ appeared now, performing miracles in front of everyones eyes, most would still deny him being the Son of God.
If Jesus is gonna come back and perform miracles, the dude should try and miracle up some sense for those fluffers that go by the names of Ed and Al VH and get a reunion tour in the bag.
That would prove it for me...:D

[ELVIS]

Yeah ??

What's your foundation of reality, Jestergirl ??

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Yeah ??

What's your foundation of reality, Jestergirl ??

I ain't sitting around putting my hope and faith in anyone other than myself. I beleive in a lifeforce that keeps nature going. And if you really paid attention to what Jesus said he also did. If you had to choose a religeion that JESUS was it would be closer to a Earth or Shamanism style relegeion. He was very tuned into nature and the peaceful way of being.

He was not any more a man than you or I. Facts are facts. Mircles and MAgic are real. But within the elements of nature. It is possible for JEsus to come back if they can reconstruct his DNA as I have pointed out before. Because that is a actual Technology that exists today.

There is no physical proof of Jesus resurecting. Only childish hopes and dreams.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Jesterstar


Alot of times (I'm not trying to insult anyone) when people throw faith into God and the idea of Jesus they are just feeding the child in them that wants to be a child and have a mommy and daddy.

You're an idiot.

Go back to your Village.

Hillary is ringing your bell. :p

[Hollywood Jesus]

It never ceases to amaze me how critical people are of other people's beliefs.

Beliefs are not scientific. They are not concrete. They are abstract. In fact, one could argue that it takes a higher level of knowledge to believe something that can neither be proved right nor wrong. Children only believe what can be proven. I challenge you to think higher.

Spirituality is something that flies beyond intelligent thought. It's part of the soul. We taste part of it listening to Vintage VH.

I believe Jesus was the Son of God, died for me and you, and rose again on the third day.

I won't attack anybody for not believing. And I expect you not to fire back.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
It never ceases to amaze me how critical people are of other people's beliefs.

Beliefs are not scientific. They are not concrete. They are abstract. In fact, one could argue that it takes a higher level of knowledge to believe something that can neither be proved right nor wrong. Children only believe what can be proven. I challenge you to think higher.

Spirituality is something that flies beyond intelligent thought. It's part of the soul. We taste part of it listening to Vintage VH.

I believe Jesus was the Son of God, died for me and you, and rose again on the third day.

I won't attack anybody for not believing. And I expect you not to fire back.

I wouldn't attack anyone for it. Knowledge (IMO) stems from what can be proved, not something I just feel or want to belief. If I can't prove it, I don't know it.

That said, I also don't like attacking other people for their beliefs. I can have opinions of other people's beliefs, but I also respect everyone's right to an opinion and a belief.

[Cathedral]

The same people are always speaking of God, and the same people keep replying in rebuttle.

So, i only post this in response to it all, and offer no more.

Luke 9: 2-5
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for you journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.
5 And whosoever will not recieve you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You're an idiot.

Go back to your Village.

Hillary is ringing your bell. :p

Wow Brilliant Response. Sorry if I exist within reality dude. How about I live my life in reality and you wait for a nice Hebrew man to come from the sky to take you to the Spiritual Disney land.

What I said made sense to you. There is not one simple fact you can present to prove me wrong. Your just acting on your Faith so I won't go on and own you into the ground. The Facts hurt. It wasn't easy when I realized what was really going on.

[FORD]

Please keep this thread on topic, thanks.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by FORD
Please keep this thread on topic, thanks.

You're right. Sorry.;)

[bueno bob]

I wonder how many times Linda's going to have to be called out on her bogus identities before she realizes they're not working...hmm...

[bueno bob]

In so far as Jesus is concerned, isn't it wonderful how you can't provide any evidence whatsoever to his existance in the first place? Just lovely how the son of God made such a lasting impact that nobody can actually verify whether or not he even existed.

Great cause for numerous wars and countless deaths, murders, and so forth...all in his name... ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by bueno bob
I wonder how many times Linda's going to have to be called out on her bogus identities before she realizes they're not working...hmm...

Dunno, but she's not doing it in the Front Line anymore. Don't need serious threads hijacked with juvenile bullshit.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by bueno bob
In so far as Jesus is concerned, isn't it wonderful how you can't provide any evidence whatsoever to his existance in the first place? Just lovely how the son of God made such a lasting impact that nobody can actually verify whether or not he even existed.

Great cause for numerous wars and countless deaths, murders, and so forth...all in his name... ;)

Bob, Bob, why do ye persecute Me? :(

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by bueno bob


Great cause for numerous wars and countless deaths, murders, and so forth...all in his name... ;)

Then he is serving his purpose. Jesus is a Tool for control. And to take a life in the name of something is the most powerful sign of control.

[Little_Skittles]

John Luke Mark and i think Mattew all are witnesses to jesus christ. Mary and Mary Magdlene are witnesses. They have verified that jesus christ did exist. I think it's wonderful that ya'lls are questioning this. But then i am curious do you believe in jesus? Do you call yourselves christians?

[bueno bob]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
John Luke Mark and i think Mattew all are witnesses to jesus christ. Mary and Mary Magdlene are witnesses. They have verified that jesus christ did exist. I think it's wonderful that ya'lls are questioning this. But then i am curious do you believe in jesus? Do you call yourselves christians?

Well that's grate. Now tell me, when, in 2000 years, somebody picks up a Mario Puzo novel out of the dust, are they going to believe that Don Corleone was one of the greatest crime figures of the 20th century too?

[bueno bob]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Bob, Bob, why do ye persecute Me? :(

Because, for being the Messiah, the Son of God, you left neither any real calling card, nor evidence of your actual existance, nor any real solutions to any of the worlds problems - in fact, your existance (if it actually occured at all) has led to more wars and human suffering than it would have had you not come at all.

That's for starters.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
John Luke Mark and i think Mattew all are witnesses to jesus christ. Mary and Mary Magdlene are witnesses. They have verified that jesus christ did exist. I think it's wonderful that ya'lls are questioning this. But then i am curious do you believe in jesus? Do you call yourselves christians?

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Hollywood Jesus]

Originally posted by Rikk
If I can't prove it, I don't know it.

I'm sure you know this, but I had to chuckle anyway:

I seriously doubt that you have personally tested-to-be-true many of the things you Know. My guess is that you, in fact, read many things in a book. Some of those books were written by thse who experienced your Knowledge firsthand.

I read the Bible like that. I haven't physically met Jesus Christ--risen or not. But I have read firsthand accounts of those who have.


John 20:29 Then Jesus told Thomas, "Because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have yet believed."

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Then he is serving his purpose. Jesus is a Tool for control. And to take a life in the name of something is the most powerful sign of control.

Just who art thou calling a "tool"? :mad:

[bueno bob]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Then he is serving his purpose. Jesus is a Tool for control. And to take a life in the name of something is the most powerful sign of control.

On that, I'm about 29057% in agreement with you.

Even if the whole Christianity thing had any basis in fact, if it originally did, it's been so far twisted out of context over the years it probably doesn't even remotely represent what was originally intended. It's become a tool for control over the masses and a good way to get you to think along a certain line of predictability. Religion is the ultimate tool of social engineering and manipulation. Not much else.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by bueno bob
Because, for being the Messiah, the Son of God, you left neither any real calling card, nor evidence of your actual existance

What year is it? And what does that number meaneth?

nor any real solutions to any of the worlds problems

If everybody lived by My Teachings and Commandments, the world would hath no problems. But Dad and I gave you freewill, so ye must discover that truth for yourselves :(

- in fact, your existance (if it actually occured at all) has led to more wars and human suffering than it would have had you not come at all.

That's for starters.

The horrible things which hath been done in My name anger Me as much as they do you. But I did not do these things, and neither did anyone who was truly My disciple. Those who hath blasphemed My name and My Dad's for the purposes of evil will find their rewards in a very warm climate.

[Warham]

All I know is that hell is going to be very full.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
I'm sure you know this, but I had to chuckle anyway:

I seriously doubt that you have personally tested-to-be-true many of the things you Know. My guess is that you, in fact, read many things in a book. Some of those books were written by thse who experienced your Knowledge firsthand.

I read the Bible like that. I haven't physically met Jesus Christ--risen or not. But I have read firsthand accounts of those who have.


John 20:29 Then Jesus told Thomas, "Because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have yet believed."

Very well said, My son :)

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
All I know is that hell is going to be very full.

Isn't it a christian beleif that GOD does all the Judgement???

Your Defying your own God by making that judgement.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
I'm sure you know this, but I had to chuckle anyway:

I seriously doubt that you have personally tested-to-be-true many of the things you Know. My guess is that you, in fact, read many things in a book. Some of those books were written by thse who experienced your Knowledge firsthand.

I read the Bible like that. I haven't physically met Jesus Christ--risen or not. But I have read firsthand accounts of those who have.


John 20:29 Then Jesus told Thomas, "Because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have yet believed."

Text is easily manipulated. Exspecially when the end result is control over millions and even billions of minds. That arguement doesn't hold any water.

[Warham]

Nope, I'm just aware that Hell is going to be full. I'm not judging any one person by making that statement.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Text is easily manipulated. Exspecially when the end result is control over millions and even billions of minds. That arguement doesn't hold any water.

They have copies going all the way back to the 2nd century. The copies then are 99.9% the same as the copies we have today, and nothing has been changed that would change the doctrines contained therein.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
They have copies going all the way back to the 2nd century. The copies then are 99.9% the same as the copies we have today.

Have you ever seen the original writtings??? You are aware that translations from that language are easily misread and misinterperted.

Not just that but your saying they have copies of what???

The Gospels could very easily have been the product of a early creative writter.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
Nope, I'm just aware that Hell is going to be full. I'm not judging any one person by making that statement.

Your judging lots of people by that statement. Tell me how your not.

[Warham]

People are going to Hell, Jester. God would not have created it just for kicks.

Not every person on this planet will be saved. I'm not making judgements, just stating the obvious from a Christian perspective.

It'd be nice if everyone believed in Christ, but it ain't happening. That's where my statement comes from.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
People are going to Hell, Jester. God would not have created it just for kicks.

Not every person on this planet will be saved. I'm not making judgements, just stating the obvious from a Christian perspective.

It'd be nice if everyone believed in Christ, but it ain't happening. That's where my statement comes from.

Dude twist it anyway you want. Your making a judgement weather you want to beleive it or not. The Christian perspective is to Judge lest ye be Judged. It comes from the bible you just condemed a huge percentage of mankind to hell based on your judgement.

Since your a EXSPERT on the christian perspective.............Where did people like say..............A culture like the Chinese go when they died??? They didn't beleive in JEsus. Their Culture Predates christianity...................Thousands and Thousands perhaps millions of them died before jesus opened the gates.............Are they also in Hell???

[Warham]

Jesus said he was the only way, Jester.

You follow the dots.

Jesus made it pretty clear to his disciples to get out there and preach the gospels. It was an urgent message, because so many nations had not heard the good news.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Dude twist it anyway you want. Your making a judgement weather you want to beleive it or not. The Christian perspective is to Judge lest ye be Judged. It comes from the bible you just condemed a huge percentage of mankind to hell based on your judgement.

Since your a EXSPERT on the christian perspective.............Where did people like say..............A culture like the Chinese go when they died??? They didn't beleive in JEsus. Their Culture Predates christianity...................Thousands and Thousands perhaps millions of them died before jesus opened the gates.............Are they also in Hell???

The Bible tells Christians to judge people's behavior repeatedly. What it says not to do is to judge a person's heart.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by bueno bob
Because, for being the Messiah, the Son of God, you left neither any real calling card, nor evidence of your actual existance, nor any real solutions to any of the worlds problems - in fact, your existance (if it actually occured at all) has led to more wars and human suffering than it would have had you not come at all.

That's for starters.

It's called faith. What good would free will on what is beyond this Earth be if there was indisputable proof of something?

[Hollywood Jesus]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Text is easily manipulated. Exspecially when the end result is control over millions and even billions of minds. That arguement doesn't hold any water.


*sigh*
It seems as though you have been burned by a religious leader, an over-zealous parent or some other religious nut.

Sorry about your experience.

Christianity is more than a conspiracy to rule the world. Unfortunatley, it has been used as such. This is merely a muisuse of power that does, in no way, illustrate the meaning of the power.

The reality of Christ today lies in the souls of followers. For each Christian, Christ is as real as this keyboard.

Jesterstar, I truly hope you find peace.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
It is documented that THE CHATHOLIC CHURCH has writtings of JESUS but did not publish them.


Duh. There's a lot of writings The Catholic Church has and hasn't published. You know, it's not a recent thing where people try to forge documents. Things like that need analysis.

And yes, I know there could be a political agenda like there is with the Mary Magdalene gospel writings, but it's not the only reason as you like to present.

[Little_Skittles]

Hey guys i know this is hypocritical but how many people could actually write back then? Wasn't it just the rich and powerful aka the government leaders? So i guess it would be pretty easy to turn the truth into what you wanted the people to know.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Duh. There's a lot of writings The Catholic Church has and hasn't published. You know, it's not a recent thing where people try to forge documents. Things like that need analysis.

And yes, I know there could be a political agenda like there is with the Mary Magdalene gospel writings, but it's not the only reason as you like to present.

I didn't say it was political. I think it goes beyond hiding Jesus's marriage. It's about controlling the population to destroy and poison the earth. Plain and simple. Small historical facts are the very least mankind has to lose.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
*sigh*
It seems as though you have been burned by a religious leader, an over-zealous parent or some other religious nut.

Sorry about your experience.

Christianity is more than a conspiracy to rule the world. Unfortunatley, it has been used as such. This is merely a muisuse of power that does, in no way, illustrate the meaning of the power.

The reality of Christ today lies in the souls of followers. For each Christian, Christ is as real as this keyboard.

Jesterstar, I truly hope you find peace.

There is a HUGE comfort factor in Christ. It's the consistant parent guiding you. It's the imaginary friend. To the Credit of Christ weather intentional or unintentional. He is using a lost magic to keep himself alive. Your not wrong about that. But you or me are capable of the same magic you just have to put your best foot forward.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I didn't say it was political. I think it goes beyond hiding Jesus's marriage. It's about controlling the population to destroy and poison the earth. Plain and simple. Small historical facts are the very least mankind has to lose.

If Jesus was married, there would be proof throughout the New Testament.

And again, that's pretty high of you to think we could control the planet like that.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
If Jesus was married, there would be proof throughout the New Testament.

And again, that's pretty high of you to think we could control the planet like that.


Actually they would hide that fact in the new testament. They have no responsibility to report the facts. Although in those times A Boy to become a man had to be married. Research the Jewish religeion. JEsus was a JEw. To become a man and he did live untill he was in his early 30's. It was a must to have be married.

[Cathedral]

The existance of Jesus is documented HISTORY, just as any war, or any news story from generations past.
You can walk where he walked, you can see what he saw (providing it's still standing), you can belive as he believed, or not, the choice is up to the individual and only that individual will reap the rewards or pay the consequence for that choice.

There were witnesses to his teachings and miracles, just like any war, or any news story from generations past.
There are people today who would stand in a crowd and yell "Crucify Him" just as they did the day he stood before his own people.

The sad thing is that the Devil has lied to everyone, and the fools believe him when he tells you that Jesus didn't exist.

But you want proof, Ok, so be it, the proof is in the fact that one man will kill you to take what you have, or rape your daughter.
The proof is in the fact that another man will lend you a hand, feed the hungry, save a whale, or take your hand in prayer.

Jesus lives inside the heart of the believer, he is the reason a cold heart turns warm for his brothers and sisters.

In other words, the one who chooses Jesus as their Lord and Savior will feel him in their heart, they will know for a fact that he did and does exist and is the only path to the kingdom of God.
The non-believer is the one who screams to the mountain tops that he is a fake, a phony, a series of eloquent writings by the creative minds thousands of years old. the one who refuses to pass up the opportunity to trample on the comments of those who do believe in him.
The one who hates to hear people speak his name are the one's filled with the spirit of the devil and who's spirits are contaminated by the lies the devil has authored that so many have fallen for.

You cannot convince me that he does not exist, the fact that i am still here today is proof of that.
But i ask you, the doubter of Jesus Christ existance, Can you prove to me that he didn't, or doesn't?

It is not my job to convince the doubter of Jesus existance. It is the job of the non-believer to seek his name and open their heart to his glory and prove it to themselves.
But a heart of stone will never find him, and this thread is made up of a wall of stone I'll not dare to climb.
If you want to know the good news, if you seek the truth with all of your heart, then the followers of his words and teachings will not turn away from you.
Or you can believe what the flesh man has told you from birth and forfeit your birth right by attacking and ignoring his sacrifice for you and I.

He is the light and the way and he is knocking on the door to your heart. will you let him in?
Or continue to walk in eternal darkness following he that wanted you to deny his glory?
As sure as there is good and evil in this world, there is good and evil in the next life, the spiritual life.
But the path is determined here on this plane, the choice belongs to the individual.

You can have eternal life, or you can have eternal damnation. I won't argue the point with anyone because i know what my choice is.

BLUNTLY:
A true servant of God will, and rightfully so, tell you you are going to hell for your disobedience to God. If that fact offends you then i'd suggest you get on your knees and pray for forgiveness.
While you have breath in your lungs and a beating heart in your chest, there is still time to see the error of your ways.
The truth is in front of you and there is no excuse for spiritual ignorance.
Hell will be full of people, in fact, it is already over flowing with lost souls.
Repent and be cleansed of your sins, or die, and be held accountable for them.
I won't hold your hand or speak easy of your fate to spare your feelings. I'd much rather see you in the kingdom of God than pander to your mortal being.

The choice is yours, and as i have said already, I've made mine.....

Buh Bye!

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
The existance of Jesus is documented HISTORY, just as any war, or any news story from generations past.
You can walk where he walked, you can see what he saw (providing it's still standing), you can belive as he believed, or not, the choice is up to the individual and only that individual will reap the rewards or pay the consequence for that choice.

There were witnesses to his teachings and miracles, just like any war, or any news story from generations past.
There are people today who would stand in a crowd and yell "Crucify Him" just as they did the day he stood before his own people.

The sad thing is that the Devil has lied to everyone, and the fools believe him when he tells you that Jesus didn't exist.

But you want proof, Ok, so be it, the proof is in the fact that one man will kill you to take what you have, or rape your daughter.
The proof is in the fact that another man will lend you a hand, feed the hungry, save a whale, or take your hand in prayer.

Jesus lives inside the heart of the believer, he is the reason a cold heart turns warm for his brothers and sisters.

In other words, the one who chooses Jesus as their Lord and Savior will feel him in their heart, they will know for a fact that he did and does exist and is the only path to the kingdom of God.
The non-believer is the one who screams to the mountain tops that he is a fake, a phony, a series of eloquent writings by the creative minds thousands of years old. the one who refuses to pass up the opportunity to trample on the comments of those who do believe in him.
The one who hates to hear people speak his name are the one's filled with the spirit of the devil and who's spirits are contaminated by the lies the devil has authored that so many have fallen for.

You cannot convince me that he does not exist, the fact that i am still here today is proof of that.
But i ask you, the doubter of Jesus Christ existance, Can you prove to me that he didn't, or doesn't?

It is not my job to convince the doubter of Jesus existance. It is the job of the non-believer to seek his name and open their heart to his glory and prove it to themselves.
But a heart of stone will never find him, and this thread is made up of a wall of stone I'll not dare to climb.
If you want to know the good news, if you seek the truth with all of your heart, then the followers of his words and teachings will not turn away from you.
Or you can believe what the flesh man has told you from birth and forfeit your birth right by attacking and ignoring his sacrifice for you and I.

He is the light and the way and he is knocking on the door to your heart. will you let him in?
Or continue to walk in eternal darkness following he that wanted you to deny his glory?
As sure as there is good and evil in this world, there is good and evil in the next life, the spiritual life.
But the path is determined here on this plane, the choice belongs to the individual.

You can have eternal life, or you can have eternal damnation. I won't argue the point with anyone because i know what my choice is.

BLUNTLY:
A true servant of God will, and rightfully so, tell you you are going to hell for your disobedience to God. If that fact offends you then i'd suggest you get on your knees and pray for forgiveness.
While you have breath in your lungs and a beating heart in your chest, there is still time to see the error of your ways.
The truth is in front of you and there is no excuse for spiritual ignorance.
Hell will be full of people, in fact, it is already over flowing with lost souls.
Repent and be cleansed of your sins, or die, and be held accountable for them.
I won't hold your hand or speak easy of your fate to spare your feelings. I'd much rather see you in the kingdom of God than pander to your mortal being.

The choice is yours, and as i have said already, I've made mine.....

Buh Bye!

ARe you fucking kidding??? I mean seriously are you fucking kidding???

Spiritual ignorance??? Tell me where the Chinese went to when they died??? Do they have a differant spiritual Rehlm than everyone else??? You see their Culture Predates and is documented the times before JEsus. Noone has saved the soul of the chinese.

Sin is a Artifical concept. There is only good and Evil. You take comfort in the fact that your on a Divine plane. Even you question your own faith I can tell by the fear you speak of god. Noone that know a god fears them. Exspecially if they are the god of love that you claim.

Your taking this way to personal and your stepping out of the bounds of logic.

Try taking a step back into reality.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral

But you want proof, Ok, so be it, the proof is in the fact that one man will kill you to take what you have, or rape your daughter.
The proof is in the fact that another man will lend you a hand, feed the hungry, save a whale, or take your hand in prayer.



WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF POINT IS THIS??? These things went on before and after the death of Jesus. Again your argument holds no water. Holy or otherwise.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Actually they would hide that fact in the new testament. They have no responsibility to report the facts. Although in those times A Boy to become a man had to be married. Research the Jewish religeion. JEsus was a JEw. To become a man and he did live untill he was in his early 30's. It was a must to have be married.

How could they? Do you know how many translators have looked at those documents? If somehting looked as if it was tampered with, you think all those people could keep it quiet? Word would get out, especially when the Catholic Church is involved.

I know a good deal of the Jewish religion as most of my friends are Jewish.

And if you had to get married to be a man, explain Paul. He was of Jewish background.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
How could they? Do you know how many translators have looked at those documents? If somehting looked as if it was tampered with, you think all those people could keep it quiet? Word would get out, especially when the Catholic Church is involved.

I know a good deal of the Jewish religion as most of my friends are Jewish.

And if you had to get married to be a man, explain Paul. He was of Jewish background.

I have no exsplination for paul. But what I do know is that the bible is about jesus and not paul. For them to report that fact about Jewish men being married it would raise questions about Jesus. There is a equil chance he was married. I wasn't there I have no access to that information. I do think someone out there does know.

[Cathedral]

The Chinese weren't here before the creator created the earth.
They are saved the same way anyone else is, by seeking Jesus as their Savior.
I mean, the Chinese are part of mankind, are they not?

Good and Evil has existed since the beginning of time, bro. It is only through the blood of Jesus that all man can be redeamed.

And no, i'm not kidding in the least.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
The Chinese weren't here before the creator created the earth.
They are saved the same way anyone else is, by seeking Jesus as their Savior.
I mean, the Chinese are part of mankind, are they not?

Good and Evil has existed since the beginning of time, bro. It is only through the blood of Jesus that all man can be redeamed.

And no, i'm not kidding in the least.
They also were around before JEsus died on the cross. They also have a incredibly educated and well documented culture. Christianity plays a minimal role even before the communists took them over.

I think if Jesus heard you say that he would laugh at you. Jesus was a Radical. He didn't conform to a sheep mentality. That message was lost on you BRO. I'm not going to say full on that jesus didn't exist. He just didn't exist to the capacity you want to beleive he did. It's impossible. It's like old men fishing. By the 10th time they tell the story about that bass they caught it was 4 feet long. Exspecially after the story is told over and over and over and the memory of the moment is lost as time goes by.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I have no exsplination for paul. But what I do know is that the bible is about jesus and not paul. For them to report that fact about Jewish men being married it would raise questions about Jesus. There is a equil chance he was married. I wasn't there I have no access to that information. I do think someone out there does know.

Basic research would tell you the answer :D

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Radical. He didn't conform to a sheep mentality.

Yet he spoke of the flock.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Yet he spoke of the flock.

Church manipulation. The Masons also talk of people as sheep. Stange coinceadence.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Church manipulation. The Masons also talk of people as sheep. Stange coinceadence.

A yes, everything is a conspiracy. I shall pray for you, Jestie.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
A yes, everything is a conspiracy. I shall pray for you, Jestie.
ACtually................It is. Pray for me. I know what my purpose is.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I mean, the Chinese are part of mankind, are they not?


That's debatable

[David Lee Rocks]

anyone seen the show Carnivale? Its got some Christian stuff In It, Fucking kick ass show too!!

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
They also were around before JEsus died on the cross. They also have a incredibly educated and well documented culture. Christianity plays a minimal role even before the communists took them over.

I think if Jesus heard you say that he would laugh at you. Jesus was a Radical. He didn't conform to a sheep mentality. That message was lost on you BRO. I'm not going to say full on that jesus didn't exist. He just didn't exist to the capacity you want to beleive he did. It's impossible. It's like old men fishing. By the 10th time they tell the story about that bass they caught it was 4 feet long. Exspecially after the story is told over and over and over and the memory of the moment is lost as time goes by.

Hey, you're free to believe what you choose to believe, bro.
I have no intention of arguing what i know against what you think.

Have a Blessed Day, My Brother...:D

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Hey, you're free to believe what you choose to believe, bro.
I have no intention of arguing what i know against what you think.

Have a Blessed Day, My Brother...:D
Your sarcasm twards me makes me giggle.

I hope for your sake that your correct.

[Cathedral]

Jester,
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, brother. It just doesn't appear to me that you have understood much of what i was trying to say.

You think the gospels are fish stories and that i'm a sheep, I do not, and i don't intend to argue with you about it, no sarcasm in that at all.
I used to think like you do, so i can relate to your point of view.
I also know that it doesn't matter what anyone writes in response, you won't see anything differently until you find your own reasons to do so.

If that is being sarcastic, well, that's your perception, not my intention.

[LoungeMachine]

Cath, seriously.....as a friend.

Don't waste your time, energy, or keystrokes on this mouthbreather.

He/she is a fucking moron.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Jester,
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, brother. It just doesn't appear to me that you have understood much of what i was trying to say.

You think the gospels are fish stories and that i'm a sheep, I do not, and i don't intend to argue with you about it, no sarcasm in that at all.
I used to think like you do, so i can relate to your point of view.
I also know that it doesn't matter what anyone writes in response, you won't see anything differently until you find your own reasons to do so.

If that is being sarcastic, well, that's your perception, not my intention.

I've been to church 2 times in two weeks. I've watched and listnened. I heard the gosseple from some of the most wonderful people in the world. I've never fell down. Your not waysting your time as a fat fucking loser as lounge machine would love to get you to believe and then suck your dick to. But that isn't the point. Christianity is not the relegeion that rules the world. Magic and peoeple who love fear are.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I've been to church 2 times in two weeks. I've watched and listnened. I heard the gosseple from some of the most wonderful people in the world. I've never fell down. Your not waysting your time as a fat fucking loser as lounge machine would love to get you to believe and then suck your dick to. But that isn't the point. Christianity is not the relegeion that rules the world. Magic and peoeple who love fear are.

Well, there is another issue all together.
I attend church as well and i take what a preacher says with a grain of salt. Sometimes they stick to the word, other times, most times, they preach from their own opinions and interpretations.
You are correct that a large majority of them lead the congregations, and get into their pockets, using fear.
I'm not so quick to follow along, and i prove what i believe or i don't believe it.
Man is flawed, and the guy who works 9 to 5 at a regular job, then preaches on Sunday has a lot more credence to me than the guy who lives on the church paid for ranch, riding his horses all week and speaking to the people about how the tires on his car never wear out because they are "sanctified".
Truth is, his tires wear out just like yours and mine do, he just isn't the one paying for the replacements.

I stay away from the "Church of Money" at all costs. I seek the truth and follow no man and his traditions for they'll lead you straight to Hell for sure.
Church, in my view, is for Worship.
So many of them come across as a social club with a minimum financial requirement to be a member, that's a crock, and they use fear to line their pockets.

A good preacher, teacher of the word of God will be humble before the Lord.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Cath, seriously.....as a friend.

Don't waste your time, energy, or keystrokes on this mouthbreather.

He/she is a fucking moron.

It's not a waste, as long as the debate is insightful.
I learn a lot from people and their points of view whether i agree with them or not.

[vanzilla]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Well, there is another issue all together.
I attend church as well and i take what a preacher says with a grain of salt. Sometimes they stick to the word, other times, most times, they preach from their own opinions and interpretations.
You are correct that a large majority of them lead the congregations, and get into their pockets, using fear.
I'm not so quick to follow along, and i prove what i believe or i don't believe it.
Man is flawed, and the guy who works 9 to 5 at a regular job, then preaches on Sunday has a lot more credence to me than the guy who lives on the church paid for ranch, riding his horses all week and speaking to the people about how the tires on his car never wear out because they are "sanctified".
Truth is, his tires wear out just like yours and mine do, he just isn't the one paying for the replacements.

I stay away from the "Church of Money" at all costs. I seek the truth and follow no man and his traditions for they'll lead you straight to Hell for sure.
Church, in my view, is for Worship.
So many of them come across as a social club with a minimum financial requirement to be a member, that's a crock, and they use fear to line their pockets.

A good preacher, teacher of the word of God will be humble before the Lord.

See Cat - what you've posted is exactly my problem with organized religion and I'm glad you called the church out for it.

I've had bad experiences with a church in the past. When I was 14 my mom was heavily attending a Baptist Church. She invited two of the ministers to the house one day. They basically told me that if I didn't repent all of my sins that I was going to spend an eternity in hell. When I asked them - Why would God sentence a 14 year old to a life of eternal damnation when he hasn't even gone through much of life's experiences? (OK, THOSE WEREN'T MY EXACT WORDS, but you get the jist) - They basically danced around the question and told me that the only way to get into heaven was to be baptised, throw out all of my rock records - INCLUDING VH - and basically start going to church every Sunday and read the Bible every day. Do those things or I'm going to hell.

So I took it as a scare tactic. The fact that those spineless bastards had the fucking balls to tell a 14 year old kid that type of stuff is unbelievable! First of all most all 14 year old boys are already fucked up with all the puberty shit going on that they have enough problems. The last thing they need is a repent or burn ultimatum.

My younger brother pretty much alienated my family because he became involved with a church that was overly zealous.

That's why I'm not a Christian. Those experiences led me to do my own research into the history of the church and I learned that 99 percent of what we were taught to believe was mostly concocted by committees used to vote on what was included or excluded in the Bible. Most of the stuff written in the Bible can't be backed with archeological evidence (Moses spending 40 years in the desert with the slaves) or scientific proof (Noah's Arc? C'mon man).

I've always said if a person has faith - I can't touch you. I'm not out to change anyone's beliefs because that is just a waste of time. You're obviously a Christian and I have no problem with that. My problem lies with other Christians who are quick to judge me and others like me because we don't have the same beliefs.

This is a good debate. Thanks for hearing me out.

[Warham]

Actually many of the people and places in the Bible can be backed by archaeological evidence, and even more are discovered as the years go by.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
Actually many of the people and places in the Bible can be backed by archaeological evidence, and even more are discovered as the years go by.

Well Of course they are. The Book is based on actual Physical places. There is however no evidence other than word of mouth that miracles took place. Alot of what Jesus is said to do are acheivable through ancient Magic and even parlor tricks.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
I won't attack anybody for not believing. And I expect you not to fire back. Sadly, you´re such a minority amongst devout Christians (especially the internet version) that many people, including myself, switch to attack mode immediately.

Needless to say, I don´t believe in any kind of god but I think everybody´s free to believe what he wants to. Too many people though, resort to some kind of missionary zeal on internet forums. This pisses off lots of people and rightfully so.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
I'm sure you know this, but I had to chuckle anyway:

I seriously doubt that you have personally tested-to-be-true many of the things you Know. My guess is that you, in fact, read many things in a book. Some of those books were written by thse who experienced your Knowledge firsthand.

I read the Bible like that. I haven't physically met Jesus Christ--risen or not. But I have read firsthand accounts of those who have.


John 20:29 Then Jesus told Thomas, "Because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have yet believed." Too bad similar arguments can be used in favour of Islam, Judaism, Budhism and god knows what else.

I don´t know if Melbourne is in Australia because I´ve never been there. Nevertheless, and unlike religion, ALL remotely reliable sources come to only one conclusion, it is in Australia. The same is true of 99,9% of the things I claim I KNOW!

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Warham
Jesus said he was the only way, Jester.

You follow the dots.

Jesus made it pretty clear to his disciples to get out there and preach the gospels. It was an urgent message, because so many nations had not heard the good news. What good news!

I´ll take a dose of Buddha´s teachings over Jesus´ ramblings any day of the week!

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Little_Skittles
Hey guys i know this is hypocritical but how many people could actually write back then? Wasn't it just the rich and powerful aka the government leaders? So i guess it would be pretty easy to turn the truth into what you wanted the people to know. That is what many believe happened.

BTW, did all of you know that till Martin Luther translated the bible into German it was only available in Latin in the vast majority of the christian world. So most people just had to believe whatever their priest told them to and that was that.

Hardly a method of establishing an unbiased truth!

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Warham
Actually many of the people and places in the Bible can be backed by archaeological evidence, and even more are discovered as the years go by. Same can be said of the koran. Nevertheless, I don´t see you praying to Mecca five times a day!

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Same can be said of the koran. Nevertheless, I don´t see you praying to Mecca five times a day!

I beleive that the Koran Predates the bible. But I am not certain on that. Someone please correct me on this. Because I'm not interested in waxing intellectual on something I am not sure of. If it is then I have a relevent point to follow up on.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I beleive that the Koran Predates the bible. But I am not certain on that. Someone please correct me on this. Because I'm not interested in waxing intellectual on something I am not sure of. If it is then I have a relevent point to follow up on. The Bible (at least, most of it) is older than the Koran.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
The Bible (at least, most of it) is older than the Koran.

Do you know what the timeline on that is??? I had thought Mohammed was around before Jesus. Again I haven't a clue.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
Actually many of the people and places in the Bible can be backed by archaeological evidence, and even more are discovered as the years go by.

Homer's Odyssey describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately?

The problem is absolutely no contemporary sources. Noone that was alive when Jesus was alive mentioned him and we have tons of writing from that time by Roman and Jewish historians.

If Herod wiped out every male child why would noone mention it?

The (anonymous) 4 gospels were written by people that weren't there, many years after the events, and contradict each other all over the place.

The Koran is actually more believable in that at least we know that Mohammed was a real life character although it does rely on the usual 'lets invent a cult' device of prophet goes out into wilderness, God gives him laws which then 'mysterously disappear'.

Ludicrous.

But the ancients aren't the only gullible people around, have you seen what scientologists believe? :D

Cheers!

:gulp:

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Do you know what the timeline on that is??? I had thought Mohammed was around before Jesus. Again I haven't a clue. Mohammed was around about 600 years after Jesus!

[WelshJon]

Originally posted by bueno bob
On that, I'm about 29057% in agreement with you.

Even if the whole Christianity thing had any basis in fact, if it originally did, it's been so far twisted out of context over the years it probably doesn't even remotely represent what was originally intended. It's become a tool for control over the masses and a good way to get you to think along a certain line of predictability. Religion is the ultimate tool of social engineering and manipulation. Not much else.

Ain't that the truth.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Mohammed was around about 600 years after Jesus!

Muslims believe that Jesus was an important prophet but that the resurection was a scam done by using an actor to play the part of Jesus.

You have to understand that when you're setting up a new religion it's much easier to do so by incorporating some of the existing beliefs to help get it off the ground and to make it easier to convert people.

That's why the Christian cult used a lot of the pagan Sun God stories for the nativity story and why they incorporated the Jewish old testament.

The same happened more recently with Jehovahs Witnesses basing their crap on the christian myths.

[LoungeMachine]

The Koran also believes the Apollo moon landing was faked......

[Jesterstar]

I know alot of Secret socioties put Jesus and Mohammed in the same company. I'll have to pull some stuff from a book I have at home. Pretty neat theories.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The Koran also believes the Apollo moon landing was faked......

Do some real reasearch on it. It was.

[Seshmeister]

The Bible says the world is flat but who am I to question 'God's' words.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Do some real reasearch on it. It was.

The complete proof that it wasn't faked is have you ever tried to get 500 Americans to keep their mouths shut for 30 years?:)

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The Bible says the world is flat but who am I to question 'God's' words. Jesus also turned water into wine!

Now why ain´t I ever around when that kind of thing happens??

:confused: :mad: :confused: :( :mad: :confused: :o :( :mad:

[Seshmeister]

You guy's can turn anti freeze into wine though...:)

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The complete proof that it wasn't faked is have you ever tried to keep 500 Americans to keep their mouths shut for 30 years?:) Never viewed it from that angle.

Excellent reasoning I have to admit!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Do some real reasearch on it. It was.

I have.

It wasn't.



Quit the mailroom and get an education. You're a moron.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
You guy's can turn anti freeze into wine though...:) That was the Austrians!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Never viewed it from that angle.

Excellent reasoning I have to admit!

Not really.

Kennedy's murder has never been fully disclosed either.

But we're off topic again.

The conspiracy theory we're discussing here happened 2,000 years ago....

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The complete proof that it wasn't faked is have you ever tried to keep 500 Americans to keep their mouths shut for 30 years?:)

Actually they did. They killed them and threatened the rest. Watch how nervous Neil Armstrong gets when he gets questioned about it. I think there is a film out there of it. i'll see if I can find it.

[Hollywood Jesus]

On Christ and possible marriage: Doesn't matter to me one way or another. Social norms suggest that he probably was married.

However, there also was a celeibate group in Israel at the time called Sens (sp?) and it is also quite possible Jesus spent time with this group. In fact, if he were Sens, it would make him all the much more mysterious--dangerous--to the leaders of the time.


The best support for believing in the deity of Jesus Christ comes from the radical Christian Tony Compolo. He says, "I believe it because I want to."

There's a lot to be said for following your 6th sense. Call it gut instinct or heart.

Whatever you follow, ride it hard. Truth will withstand the hard ride.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by vanzilla
See Cat - what you've posted is exactly my problem with organized religion and I'm glad you called the church out for it.

I've had bad experiences with a church in the past. When I was 14 my mom was heavily attending a Baptist Church. She invited two of the ministers to the house one day. They basically told me that if I didn't repent all of my sins that I was going to spend an eternity in hell. When I asked them - Why would God sentence a 14 year old to a life of eternal damnation when he hasn't even gone through much of life's experiences? (OK, THOSE WEREN'T MY EXACT WORDS, but you get the jist) - They basically danced around the question and told me that the only way to get into heaven was to be baptised, throw out all of my rock records - INCLUDING VH - and basically start going to church every Sunday and read the Bible every day. Do those things or I'm going to hell.

So I took it as a scare tactic. The fact that those spineless bastards had the fucking balls to tell a 14 year old kid that type of stuff is unbelievable! First of all most all 14 year old boys are already fucked up with all the puberty shit going on that they have enough problems. The last thing they need is a repent or burn ultimatum.

My younger brother pretty much alienated my family because he became involved with a church that was overly zealous.

That's why I'm not a Christian. Those experiences led me to do my own research into the history of the church and I learned that 99 percent of what we were taught to believe was mostly concocted by committees used to vote on what was included or excluded in the Bible. Most of the stuff written in the Bible can't be backed with archeological evidence (Moses spending 40 years in the desert with the slaves) or scientific proof (Noah's Arc? C'mon man).

I've always said if a person has faith - I can't touch you. I'm not out to change anyone's beliefs because that is just a waste of time. You're obviously a Christian and I have no problem with that. My problem lies with other Christians who are quick to judge me and others like me because we don't have the same beliefs.

This is a good debate. Thanks for hearing me out.

First of all, God doesn't send people to hell, he loves all his children way to much to do such a thing. It isn't written that he loves only his followers. It is written that he loves all of his children, the sinner and non-sinner alike.
The thief who was crucified to his left had never been to church, or heard the word of God, but as he watched Jesus be put to death having done nothing wrong he had faith in Jesus, which is what saved his soul.
The man to the right of Jesus taunted him claiming if he was the Son of God he could save himself and them, but that was not the plan, and Jesus did have a choice in the matter. But he was determined to follow God's will, and God's will was done, but he had a choice as we all do.
It isn't God who sends a soul to Hell, it is the soul that condemns itself to Hell by the choices we make, by not living a life that is pleasing to the Lord, and by denying Jesus Christ.

As a kid growing up i always looked on preachers as some sort of Royalty, the men with the plan, sitting upon the throne of knowledge and i had better listen to every word and cling to it as if my life depended on it.....Hogwash, they are just men who are led by the same spirit that has tugged at me since youth. the only difference is what they allowed themselves to believe.

The one thing that i have learned first hand is that most all churches teach by the traditions handed down by holy men before them, most of which aren't in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
They go to Seminaries and are implanted with these traditions.
But the Hebrew meaning of Tradition is "Nothing Useful", and if you cannot prove all things, then you are not to believe them.

I Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"

Water Baptism won't save your soul, it is more a symbolic gesture that suggests you are serious about commiting your life to God and having a relationship with him through his son, Jesus Christ.
Again, go back to the man crucified to the left of Jesus, he wasn't Baptised and Jesus assured him a place in the kingdom for saying basically two simple words - "Remember Me".

It's not about sitting in a comfortable pew, it isn't about how much money you give, it isn't about a huge building filled with people...It is about what is in your heart and loving Jesus for what he did for you, me, and everyone walking the earth.

It is about living a life that is pleasing to the Lord, do that and he'll welcome you into his loving spirit with arms wide open. repent for your sins so that you can begin your new life sin free as it was Jesus mission to wash those sins away by his blood.
All you have to do is believe in your heart that he is real and ask for forgiveness.
Then your only requirement is to spread the word, share what you have learned and get behind a church that shares the right message according to his word without scare tactics or bills they cannot afford to pay without extorting it from it's members.
It shouldn't be about money, but at the same time, a church does need support in the form of financial support.
But you only give what you can when you can and if you cannot, nobody will look down upon you, or keep you from attending the service.

Man, I have sat through services where they have harped on money, claiming they cannot pay their bills and that they will have to stop broadcasting on TV if the people don't give until it hurts.

I have one thing to say about a church drilling that message into it's congregation - Bye Bye, see ya later!
My old church had a man that said to it's Elders "Bring in more people so we can meet the bills or i'm leaving this church"

He was gone in less than 4 weeks because the people in the seats stopped coming alltogether. Most of them didn't even know of his altimatum, but the spirit did, and he was done there.
The Lord truly does work in mysterious ways.

Even on TBN and CBN, you cannot trust the Televangelist that claims that George W. Bush is the chosen President. Even if that were true, they wouldn't know enough to profess it as they do.
They claim that because the bible talks of wars, and rumors of wars, that the Christian has a right to stand on the sidelines and root for our side to kill as many of the enemy as they can.
that's such a load of crap it makes me physically sick to my stomach.

Any servant of God who acts as a Cheerleader to war is not of Christ, for he told everyone to "love thy enemy", he told us to take their burdens as our own and spread the Good News, not Bombs and Bullets.
If they take up a sword and strike you down, you will have done your duty on this earth, and life doesn't end there for the faithful for your eternity will be spent as it was for that theif, with Jesus in paradise.

Seek the Lord with all of your heart and he will provide you all the tools of knowledge for your journey through this life.

[Hollywood Jesus]

Originally posted by Cathedral
First of all, God doesn't send people to hell, he loves all his children way too much to do such a thing.

...It isn't God who sends a soul to Hell, it is the soul that condemns itself to Hell by the choices we make, by not living a life that is pleasing to the Lord, and by denying Jesus Christ.

The entire post was golden. Echos my experiences and thoughts to a T. Nice job, Cathedral.

Inspired at a DLR website. Who would have guessed?

[Cathedral]

Really, I don't even think i'm here for DLR anymore, lol.
It's the members that keep me coming back.

I do however hope that i have cleared up my point of view of why i don't like the term "Christian" as it is used to describe groups of people who are simply not alike beyond that word.

I know i am not perfect, but i don't take what i am told as truth without finding proof in the word.
And a lot of what i was told growing up isn't supported without a healthy dose of twisting of the scripture out of its true context.

But the conclusion is that the bible isn't hard to understand unless it is made to be hard to understand. the answers are there right in front of you.
The only contradictions are the ones created by man because they won't stop and study what they question before moving on.
The Devil wants you to find questions in the books, what he doesn't want you to find are the answers that document and prove what is written.
Remember the phrase, "The Devil is in the details", because that is so true. He is in the details and uses those details to turn people away from Christ.
But, those details that sow the books together to tell one truth are scattered about them all, one reinforcing the other, and so on, until the message is clear.

I am having to re-learn everything i was told all my life, because the flaws of mans teachings create confusion, and confusion leads to uncertaintly, which leads to doubt, which ultimately leads to success for the Devil in decieving good people.

Above all else, I have learned not to argue the word with those who refuse to approach it with a clear unbiased mindset.
If we spend time trying to reach the unreachable, someone who genuinely seeks the tuth may suffer for it.
Shake the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them, and move on.

I have seen many times on this forum alone how some puff out their chest after posting something they think disproves the gospels and their meanings, but they have only served to damage their own salvation and are doomed to remain lost until the Lord returns for all eyes to see.
Man can find fault in anything they choose to, but they have to deny the truth in order to do it.
Many have been decieved, and many more will follow, especially at the sound of the 6th trump.

[bueno bob]

YOU are the great great great great great great great great GREAT great grandniece of Jesus Christ. :D

[bueno bob]

Say what you will, "Dogma" kicked ass! :)

[Warham]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Actually they did. They killed them and threatened the rest. Watch how nervous Neil Armstrong gets when he gets questioned about it. I think there is a film out there of it. i'll see if I can find it.

You think the moon landing was faked too?

Good fucking grief.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Cathedral
But the conclusion is that the bible isn't hard to understand unless it is made to be hard to understand. the answers are there right in front of you.


Indeed, the scriptures have these words...

Luke 18:15-17 People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. But Jesus called for them and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it."

Matthew 18:1-5 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, " Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a child, whom he put among the, and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

[Cathedral]

Amen to that, brother Warham...... ;)

[Seshmeister]

Pity so many priests misread that as let me come onto the little children...

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Pity so many priests misread that as let me come onto the little children...

They'll get their just punishment for their actions, it's safe to say that is guarenteed.
But i also understand that not all Priests are sick like that.
I honestly feel bad for the image that has been laid upon them as a whole, but am dusgusted at the lack of action initially taken to address these issues properly by the church.

It's the same thing with Christians, not all who claim to be one is of Christ.

[Hardrock69]

Here is some reality. This is not a 'belief', it is FACTUAL.

I have copied and pasted only a few paragraphs below from the following page:

LINK (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)


No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.


THE BIBLE GOSPELS

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels got written by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels got written during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.

The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a hellenized Jew and even possibly a woman. He (or she) wrote at a time of tension in the Roman empire along with its fever of persecution. Many modern scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke got derived from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source"). [Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.

John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the book got written in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)." [Spong]

Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.





NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus got born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although there occur many disputes as to the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happend after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, it can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people got born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply looking at the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of the post writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves.


WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what got later written about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?


Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

[Warham]

If Judge Greer in Florida listened to this case, he'd say Jesus did exist, because he bases his decisions on hearsay.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Cathedral

I honestly feel bad for the image that has been laid upon them as a whole, but am dusgusted at the lack of action initially taken to address these issues properly by the church.


It's worse than not taking action the church policy was that you actually got excommunicated if you told anyone of pedophile evidence given against a priest.

Effectively if you don't let this guy continue to fuck children you will roast in hell for eternity.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Not really.

Kennedy's murder has never been fully disclosed either.


You think that NASA killed Kennedy?

It would explain that bouncing bullet thing...:)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's worse than not taking action the church policy was that you actually got excommunicated if you told anyone of pedophile evidence given against a priest.

Effectively if you don't let this guy continue to fuck children you will roast in hell for eternity.

To be fair, the number of Catholic Priests who were sexual predators was pretty much on par with all other major religions, and professions for that matter. But it is the Catholic church's hierarchy that allowed these cunts to be cycled around from parish to parish.

[Hardrock69]

Why would the Church willingly give up their power?

No way will any Church deny that Jesus ever existed...if they did, the congregation might start demanding all of their money back!!!

Religion does NOT come with a money-back guarantee!

:D

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Actually they did. They killed them and threatened the rest. Watch how nervous Neil Armstrong gets when he gets questioned about it. I think there is a film out there of it. i'll see if I can find it.

They killed and threatened hundreds of thousand of people and noone said a thing huh?

All the guys at NASA. The hundreds of sailors that pulled them out the ocean. The press. The government contractors. FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE IN TOTAL!

I prefer to take my evidence from thousands of scientists in particular the hundreds of geologists at every big university in the world that have examined moon rocks. The moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions are not like anything else on Earth. They show the effect of billions of years exposure to vacuum, no moisture, and high energy cosmic rays. They are also pitted with tiny meteoroids. None show the burned effect typical of meteorites that have landed here on Earth. Could they have been faked? No. As one geologist put it, "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one."

When the lunar Rovers were driving about on the moon how come the dust flys off the wheels in perfect paranolas rather than the way you see on Earth? It was filmed in giant vacuumed studios? Gimme a fucking break.

I prefer to think that perhaps it would be a little difficult to keep the Russians quiet about a fake moon landing in the middle of the cold war when they could monitor the flight.

You prefer to trust the dumb second hand rantings of a gameshow host on a TV program where people eat bugs.



What are the other great theories on the faked moon landing hoax?

No stars?
It was during the day.

Funny Shadows?
The light bounces off the surface of the moon as well as the astronauts spacesuits and other equipment around the lander. Because the moon's surface is a light gray, and very reflective, the shadows can be lit very brightly.

The Radiation Belt
The equivalent of 100 chest X-Rays or 50 flights across the Atlantic.

The faked moon landing conspiracy has a thousand holes in it you can drive a truck through and is frankly pathetic and not worth any more of my time.

Give me a fucking break.

Cheers!



:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
To be fair, the number of Catholic Priests who were sexual predators was pretty much on par with all other major religions, and professions for that matter.

Are you telling me 5% of people in the world are pedophiles? One in twenty? 500 of the people who have registered here?

I think they either chose to become priests because they were like that and it offered great opportunities or celibacy plus the culture of the religion made them like that.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
They killed and threatened hundreds of thousand of people and noone said a thing huh?

All the guys at NASA. The hundreds of sailors that pulled them out the ocean. The press. The government contractors. FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE IN TOTAL!

I prefer to take my evidence from thousands of scientists in particular the hundreds of geologists at every big university in the world that have examined moon rocks. The moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions are not like anything else on Earth. They show the effect of billions of years exposure to vacuum, no moisture, and high energy cosmic rays. They are also pitted with tiny meteoroids. None show the burned effect typical of meteorites that have landed here on Earth. Could they have been faked? No. As one geologist put it, "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one."

When the lunar Rovers were driving about on the moon how come the dust flys off the wheels in perfect paranolas rather than the way you see on Earth? It was filmed in giant vacuumed studios? Gimme a fucking break.

I prefer to think that perhaps it would be a little difficult to keep the Russians quiet about a fake moon landing in the middle of the cold war when they could monitor the flight.

You prefer to trust the dumb second hand rantings of a gameshow host on a TV program where people eat bugs.



What are the other great theories on the faked moon landing hoax?

No stars?
It was during the day.

Funny Shadows?
The light bounces off the surface of the moon as well as the astronauts spacesuits and other equipment around the lander. Because the moon's surface is a light gray, and very reflective, the shadows can be lit very brightly.

The Radiation Belt
The equivalent of 100 chest X-Rays or 50 flights across the Atlantic.

The faked moon landing conspiracy has a thousand holes in it you can drive a truck through and is frankly pathetic and not worth any more of my time.

Give me a fucking break.

Cheers!



:gulp:

Joe Rogan is a Fuck and has nothing to do with why I think that. Did you ever notice there was no blast CRATOR when the Lunor landing took place??? THat's a BIG deal and defy's the technology of the time. On top of that the Ocean Pick up is easily staged. They dropped them from the back of a plane. Scientists are easily manipulated. Your Argument holds no water. When people are threatened with death they fall in line quickly.

[Jesterstar]

Oh And Sesh the no stars thing makes no sense that day light would effect it. THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE YOU RETARD. DAY AND NIGHT DON'T EFFECT THE MOON.

Your owned. Trying actually reading things before you humiliate yourself.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Joe Rogan is a Fuck and has nothing to do with why I think that.

Blah, Blah, Blah
.

Way to stay on topic:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax
(February 13, 2001)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.

Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! It is. So let me get this straight right from the start: this program is an hour long piece of junk.

From the very first moment to the very last, the program is loaded with bad thinking, ridiculous suppositions and utterly wrong science. I was able to get a copy of the show in advance, and although I was expecting it to be bad, I was still surprised and how awful it was. I took four pages of notes. I won't subject you to all of that here; it would take hours to write. I'll only go over some of the major points of the show, and explain briefly why they are wrong. In the near future, hopefully by the end of the summer, I will have a much more detailed series of pages taking on each of the points made by the Hoax Believers (whom I will call HBs).

So let's take a look at the ``evidence'' brought out by the show. To make this easier, below is a table with links to the specific arguments.


Disclaimer 20% believe in the hoax? The Capricorn 1 tie-in
No stars in pictures No blast crater Dust around the lander
Deep, dark shadows Non-parallel shadows Identical backgrounds
More identical backgrounds Lander unable to balance itself No flames from lunar launch
Astronauts footage shot in slow-motion The waving flag Why was every picture perfect?
Missing crosshairs in photos The deadly radiation of space Did NASA murder its astronauts?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: Right at the beginning, they have a disclaimer:

The following program deals with a controversial subject. The theories expressed are not the only possible explanation. Viewers are invited to make a judgment based on all available information.
Good: The last thing the writers of this program want the viewers to do is make an informed decision. If they did, they would have given equal time to both sides of this controversy. Instead, the vast majority of the time is given to the HBs, with only scattered (and very vague) dismissive statements by skeptics. So the available information is really only what they tell you. Of course, there are a lot of websites talking about this. I have a list of them on my own site.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The show claims that 20% of Americans have doubts that we went to the Moon.

Good: That number is a bit misleading. A 1999 Gallup poll showed it was more like 6%, a number which agrees with a poll taken in 1995 by Time/CNN. The Gallup website also says:

Although, if taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals, it is not unusual to find about that many people in the typical poll agreeing with almost any question that is asked of them -- so the best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread.
It also depends on what you mean by ``doubts''. Does that mean someone who truly doesn't believe man ever went to the Moon, or just that it's remotely possible that NASA faked it? Those are very different things. Not only does the program not say, but they don't say where they found the statistic they quote either.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The program talks about the movie ``Capricorn 1'', an entertaining if ultimately silly movie about how NASA must fake a manned Mars expedition. The program says ``The Apollo footage [from the surface of the Moon] is strikingly similar to the scenes in ``Capricorn 1''.

Good: Is it just an amazing coincidence that the actual Moon images look like the movie, or is it evidence of conspiracy? Neither! The movie was filmed in 1978, many years after the last man walked on the Moon. The movie was made to look like the real thing! This statement by the program is particularly ludicrous, and indicates just how far the producers were willing to go to make a sensational program.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

[Note added December 6, 2001: Originally in this section I said that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the astronauts' view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion; it was known that dust would blow around before the missions were launched, and steps were taken to make sure the astronauts knew their height above the surface. Anyway, the incorrect section has been removed.]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The next argument presented on the show deals with the lunar dust. As the lander descended, we clearly see dust getting blown away by the rocket. The exhaust should have blown all the dust away, yet we can clearly see the astronauts' footprints in the dust mere meters from the lander. Obviously, when NASA faked this they messed it up.

Good: Once again, the weird alien environment of the Moon comes to play. Imagine taking a bag of flour and dumping it onto your kitchen floor (kids: ask your folks first!). Now bend over the pile, take a deep breath, and blow into it as hard as you can. Poof! Flour goes everywhere. Why? Because the momentum of your breath goes into the flour, which makes it move. But note that the flour goes up, and sideways, and aloft into the air. If you blow hard enough, you might see little curlicues of air lifting the flour farther than your breath alone could have, and doing so to dust well outside of where your breath actually blew.

That's the heart of this problem. We are used to air helping us blow things around. The air itself is displaced by your breath, which pushed on more air, and so on. On the Earth, your breath might blow flour that was dozens of centimeters away, even though your actual breath didn't reach that far. On the Moon, there is no air. The only dust that gets blown around by the exhaust of the rocket (which, remember, isn't nearly as strong as the HBs claim) is the dust physically touched by the exhaust, or dust hit by other bits of flying dust. In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there.

I can't resist: another Hoax Believer argument bites the dust.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The next evidence also involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, the HBs say, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.

Good: This is one of my favorite HB claims. They give you the answer in the claim itself: "...if the Sun is the only source of light..." It isn't. Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?

The answer is: The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

Now think about the sunlight. Let's say the sun is off to the right in a picture. It is illuminating the right side of the lander, and the left is in shadow. However, the sunlight falling beyond the lander on the left is being reflected back toward the Sun. That light hits the surface and reflects to the right and up, directly onto the shadowed part of the lander. In other words, the lunar surface is so bright that it easily lights up the shadows of vertical surfaces.

This effect is called heiligenschein (the German word for halo). You can find some neat images of it at here, for example. This also explains another HB claim, that many times the astronauts appear to be standing in a spotlight. This is a natural effect of heiligenschein. You can reproduce this effect yourself; wet grass on a cool morning will do it. Face away from the Sun and look at the shadow of your head. There will be a halo around it. The effect is also very strong in fine, disturbed dust like that in a baseball diamond infield. Or, of course, on the Moon.

[Note added June 29, 2001: A nifty demonstration of the shadow filling was done by Ian Goddard and can be found here. His demos are great, and really drive the point home.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.

Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.

Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!

Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you'll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.

[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, check out Ian Goddard's work for more about this.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The program has two segments dealing with what they call ``identical backgrounds''. In one, they show the lunar lander with a mountain in the background. They then show another picture of the same mountain, but no lander in the foreground at all. The astronauts could not have taken either picture before landing, of course, and after it lifts off the lander leaves the bottom section behind. Therefore, there would have been something in the second image no matter what, and the foreground could not be empty. Obviously, the mountain background is a fake set, and was reused by NASA for another shot.

Good: Actually, the pictures are real, of course. As always, repeat after me: the Moon is not the Earth. On the Earth, distant objects are obscured a bit by haze in the air, and we use that to mentally gauge distances. However, with no air, an object can be very far away on the Moon and still be crisp and sharp to the eye. You can't tell if a boulder is a meter across and 100 meters away, or 100 meters across and 10 kilometers away!

That's what's going on here. The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all! If you look at the scene carefully, you'll see that all the rocks and craters in the foreground changes between the two pictures, just as you'd expect if the astronaut had moved to the side a ways between the two shots. It's not fraud, it's parallax!

Another example of the difficulty in estimating distance is due to the shapes of the rocks on the Moon. A rock small enough to sit down on doesn't look fundamentally different from one bigger than your house. Humans also judge distance by using the relative sizes of objects. We know how big a person is, or a tree, so the apparent size of the object can be used to estimate the distance. If we don't know how big the object is, we can be fooled about its distance.

For an outstanding example of this, take a look at video taken during Apollo 16. There is a boulder in the background that looks to be about 3 or 4 meters (10-13 feet) high. About 3/4 of the way through the segment the astronauts walk over to it. Amazingly, that boulder is the size of a large house! Without knowing how big the rock was when we first see it, we have no way to judge distances. That huge rock looks like a medium sized one until we have some way to directly judge its size; in this case, by looking at the tiny astronauts next to it. [My thanks to Bad Reader Martin Michalak for bringing this video to my attention. My very special thanks goes to Charlie Duke (yes, the Charlie Duke, Apollo astronaut and lunar lander pilot) who emailed me (!) about the difficulty in judging distances due to not knowing the sizes of rocks.]

I will admit the Fox program had me for a while on this one; I couldn't figure it out. But then I got a note from Bad Reader David Bailey, who set me straight. However, the producers of the show should have talked to some real experts before saying such a silly thing as this. If they had checked with the folks who run the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, for example, they would have been set straight too.

NEW! (February 19, 2001): I found a site that has an animation where the two images of the mountain are superimposed. You need Flash for it, but it's a great animation. The beauty of it is that you can see changes in the mountain range due to parallax!. In other words, this animation is support that the images are real and are not using a fake backdrop. The real beauty of this animation is that the person who put it together is an HB. I like the irony of linking to that animation and using it to show that it is indeed evidence that Apollo did go to the Moon. I love the web!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The other ``identical background'' segment shows an astronaut on a hilltop. A second video shows two astronauts on the same hill (and this time it really is the same hill), and claims that NASA itself says these two videos were taken on two different hills separated by many kilometers. How can this be? They are obviously the same hill, so NASA must be lying!

Good: Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a mistake. A videotape about Apollo 16 ironically titled ``Nothing So Hidden...'' released by NASA does indeed make that claim, but in this case it looks to me to be a simple error. I asked Eric Jones, who is the editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and he told me those two clips were taken about three minutes apart. Eric's assistant, Ken Glover, uncovered this problem. He sent me this transcript (which I edited a bit to make links to the video clips) of the Fox show with his comments, which I will highlight in red:


Narrator: Background discrepancies are also apparent in the lunar video.
[...]

[Video showing John Young at Station 4 on EVA-2, with Fox caption "Day One". Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]

Narrator: This shot was taped in what was purported to be the first of Apollo 16's lunar excursions.

[Audio of John Young dubbed over clip: "Well, I couldn't pick a better spot", actual MET of 123:58:46]

[Next, video of John Young and Charlie Duke at Station 4, EVA-2. In reality, about three minutes after the first clip. Fox caption "Day Two". Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]

Narrator: And this video was from the next day, at a different location.

[Audio of Charlie Duke dubbed over clip: "That is the most beautiful sight!", actual MET of 124:03:01]

Narrator: NASA claims the second location was two-and-a-half miles away, but when one video was superimposed over the other the locations appear identical.

[Audio of John Young dubbed over "Day Two" video: " It's absolutely unreal!", actual MET 144:16:30]

Narrator: Conspiracy theorists claim that even closer examination of the photos suggest evidence of doctoring.

That last line is pretty funny. The audio you hear of the astronauts in those clips was actually all from different times than the video!

So that's why the hill looks the same. It's the same hill, and the two clips were not taken a day apart, but from three minutes apart or so. Again, had the program producers bothered to check their sources, they would have received a prompt answer. That's all I did: I emailed the editor of the ALSJ. It was pretty easy to do, and he answered me in minutes.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: Ralph Rene, a self-proclaimed physicist, claims that the astronauts shifting in the cabin would change the center of mass, throwing the lunar lander off balance. They couldn't compensate for this, which would have crashed the lander. Thus, the landing was faked.

Good: Rene is wrong. Evidently he doesn't know how the internet works either, because there is a website which describes how the attitude control was maintained on the lander during descent and ascent; it's the Apollo Saturn Reference page. There was a feedback control system on board the lander which determined if the axis were shifting. During descent, the engine nozzle could shift direction slightly to compensate for changes in the center of gravity of the lander (the technical term for this is gimbaling the nozzle). During ascent, the engine nozzle was fixed in position, so there was a series of smaller rockets which was used to maintain the proper attitude. Incidentally, every rocket needs to do this since fuel shifts the center of gravity as it is burned up by the rocket, yet Rene and the other HBs don't seem to doubt that rockets themselves work! So we have a case of selective thinking on the part of the HBs.

[Note (July 20, 2001): My thanks again to Apollo astronaut Charlie Duke for correcting a technical error in a previous version of this section. After describing the above scenario to me, he said the ascent stage of the lander was "a sporty ride".]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The program claims that when the top half of the lander took off from the Moon to bring the astronauts back into orbit, there was no flame from the rocket. Obviously, every rocket has a visible flame, so the takeoff was faked.

Good: There is actually a simple reason why you cannot see the flame from the lander when it took off. The fuels they used produced no visible flame! The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent. That's why you cannot see the flame. We expect to see a flame because of the usual drama of liftoff from the Earth; the flame and smoke we see from the Shuttle, for example, is because the solid rocket boosters do actually produce them, while the lunar lander did not. Here is a brief webpage describing this. Note too that fuels like this are still used today, and indeed rockets in space produce little or no visible flame.

I heard an account that the cameras used for the ascent of the lander were fairly primitive, even for that era (this is usually the case in space travel, where it takes extensive testing to make sure things work properly; during that time the state of the art advances). Even if it were visible, the flash of the exhaust may have easily been missed by those cameras.

[Note added April 9, 2001: My original assertion about not seeing the flame was because the Moon has no air, and we see flame from rockets on Earth because we have an atmosphere. This does have some effect (the pressure of air constrains the rocket exhaust and helps produce the effect we see) but the larger reason the flame is invisible is due to the fuel used. I gratefully thank the dozens of people who sent me email about this.]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked.

Good: This was the first new bit I have seen from the HBs, and it's funny. To me even when sped up, the images didn't look like they were filmed in Earth's gravity. The astronauts were sidling down a slope, and they looked weird to me, not at all like they would on Earth. I will admit that if wires were used, the astronauts' gait could be simulated.

However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!

This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!

Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!

Good ... and of course, no one claims they did. Thousands of pictures were taken on the Moon, and the ones you see will tend to be the good ones. If Buzz Aldrin accidentally cut off Neil Armstrong's head, you probably won't see that image in a magazine. Also, everything done on the Moon was practiced endlessly by the astronauts. The people working on the mission knew that these pictures would be some of the most important images ever taken, so they would have taken particular care in making sure the astronauts could do it cold. When fabled astronaut Story Musgrave replaced a camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993, someone commented that he made it look easy. "Sure," he replied, "I had practiced it thousands of times!"

The program goes farther than this, though: they actually contacted the man who designed the cameras for the astronauts. When they asked him why the pictures were always perfect, he hemmed and hawed, and finally admitted he had no answer for that. This is hardly evidence that NASA must have faked the missions. All it means is that he couldn't think of anything while sitting on camera! I think this is pretty evil of the program producers to do this; a bit of editing on their part makes it looks like they completely baffled an expert.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts' cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked.

Good: This argument is pretty silly. Do the HBs think that NASA had painted crosshairs on the set behind the astronauts? I heard one HB claim the crosshairs were added later on, and NASA had messed up some of the imaging. That's ridiculous! Why add in crosshairs later? Cameras equipped with crosshairs have been used for a long time, and it would have been easy to simply use some to take pictures on the faked set. Clearly, the HBs are wrong here, but the images do look funny. What happened?

What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.

[Note (added February 18, 2001): I have been informed by David Percy, a photographer quoted in the Fox show, that he does indeed believe that man went to the Moon, but he believes there are anomalies in the imagery taken which ``put into question many aspects of the missions'', which is a different matter. While I disagree that there are anomalies, I have edited out what is essentially a personal attack on Mr. Percy that I had here originally. It is an easy matter to let one's emotions get carried away when writing these essays, and I apologize to him and my readers for letting that get in. I make it a policy to correct Bad Astronomy based on facts, not personalities.]

[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, Ian Goddard's work has more about this, including images that show how crosshairs can fade out in a bright background.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very, very Bad: Kaysing says that the Apollo 1 fire that killed Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom was no accident. Grissom was ready to talk to the press about the Moon hoax, so NASA killed him. Kaysing says NASA also killed other people who were about to blow the whistle as well.

This is so disgusting I have a hard time writing a coherent reply. Kaysing has no grasp of basic physics, photography or even common sense, but he accuses NASA of killing people to shut them up. That is a particularly loathsome accusation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The utter bilge pumped out in this program goes on and on, and indeed, if you go to the HBs websites you can read more than any brain can handle. I have read literally dozens of things that ``prove'' the landings were faked, and each one is rather easily shown to be wrong by anyone with experience in such things. I think the problem here is twofold: we tend to want to believe (or at least listen to) conspiracy theories, and this one is a whopper. Also, the evidence is presented in such a way that, if you are unfamiliar with the odd nature of the vacuum of space and of space travel, it sounds reasonable.

But it isn't reasonable. Their evidence is actually as tenuous as the vacuum of space itself. I find it amazing that they are so willing to scrutinize every available frame of data from the astronauts, yet miss the most obvious thing right in front of them. Fox television and the producers of this program should be ashamed of themselves. Even worse, the Fox Family Channel broadcast a show just last year that was skeptical and even handed about the Moon Hoax! Amazingly, Mitch Pileggi hosted that program as well.

I'll end this on one more bit the HBs don't talk about. When Jim Lovell, two time Apollo astronaut and commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, was told about Kaysing's claims, Lovell called him a kook. Kaysing, ever the rational thinker, sued Lovell for slander. Imagine: Kaysing, who says that NASA murdered three men outright and arranged for the murders of others, sued Commander James Lovell for slander! After some time, a judge wisely threw the case out of court.

There's still hope.

www.badastronomy.com

[Warham]

End of discussion.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
They killed and threatened hundreds of thousand of people and noone said a thing huh?

All the guys at NASA. The hundreds of sailors that pulled them out the ocean.

Sesh has him there. No way in the world are you going to get that damn many US Navy sailors to shut their damn mouths. It's just like the downing of Flight 800 off the coast of New York by an apparent missile from a US Navy destroyer. No way. Somebody would have talked.

:gulp:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Sesh has him there. No way in the world are you going to get that damn many US Navy sailors to shut their damn mouths. It's just like the downing of Flight 800 off the coast of New York by an apparent missile from a US Navy destroyer. No way. Somebody would have talked.

:gulp:

Anybody from that boat turn up dead under "suspicious circumstances"? ;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Anybody from that boat turn up dead under "suspicious circumstances"? ;)

Clinton had them rubbed out:cool:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Clinton had them rubbed out:cool:

You've gotten that incorrect; you mean Clinton rubbed ONE out.;)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Oh And Sesh the no stars thing makes no sense that day light would effect it. THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE YOU RETARD. DAY AND NIGHT DON'T EFFECT THE MOON.

Your owned. Trying actually reading things before you humiliate yourself.

Read the post above or any other of the million on the web that blow this stupid conspiracy theory out of the water.

Or was it the lizards that did it?

It's pretty obvious why you work in a mail room, fuck you're dumb.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
They killed and threatened hundreds of thousand of people and noone said a thing huh?

All the guys at NASA. The hundreds of sailors that pulled them out the ocean. The press. The government contractors. FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE IN TOTAL!

I prefer to take my evidence from thousands of scientists in particular the hundreds of geologists at every big university in the world that have examined moon rocks. The moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions are not like anything else on Earth. They show the effect of billions of years exposure to vacuum, no moisture, and high energy cosmic rays. They are also pitted with tiny meteoroids. None show the burned effect typical of meteorites that have landed here on Earth. Could they have been faked? No. As one geologist put it, "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one."

When the lunar Rovers were driving about on the moon how come the dust flys off the wheels in perfect paranolas rather than the way you see on Earth? It was filmed in giant vacuumed studios? Gimme a fucking break.

I prefer to think that perhaps it would be a little difficult to keep the Russians quiet about a fake moon landing in the middle of the cold war when they could monitor the flight.

You prefer to trust the dumb second hand rantings of a gameshow host on a TV program where people eat bugs.



What are the other great theories on the faked moon landing hoax?

No stars?
It was during the day.

Funny Shadows?
The light bounces off the surface of the moon as well as the astronauts spacesuits and other equipment around the lander. Because the moon's surface is a light gray, and very reflective, the shadows can be lit very brightly.

The Radiation Belt
The equivalent of 100 chest X-Rays or 50 flights across the Atlantic.

The faked moon landing conspiracy has a thousand holes in it you can drive a truck through and is frankly pathetic and not worth any more of my time.

Give me a fucking break.

Cheers!



:gulp:

Now you see why i love this guy?
Always a post with substance and directly to the point.
Though we don't always see eye to eye on stuff, there is hardly a more respected veteran on this site.

Cheers!

[Nickdfresh]

Jester...Pick up a book on "CHAOS THEORY," or watch the following film:
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00004D0C6.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

You will see a clear metaphor as to why 90% of conspriacy theories are bullshit and the secret cannot be kept. Something ("bug") always interfere with the best laid plans.

[Cathedral]

Conspiracy, is a conspiracy....Thanks, i'll be here all night... :)

[Satan]

You know, I was present at JC's crucifixion and invited him down to Hell for the weekend, but I don't remember any astronauts coming along.

Is a Devil getting confused in his old age or did this thread get a little off track?

[Cathedral]

Shhhhhhhh, I don't want to be attacked in a quote.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Seshmeister



It's pretty obvious why you work in a mail room, fuck you're dumb.

:D

Actually, Sesh, he'd need to work UP to being only dumb:cool:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
When the lunar Rovers were driving about on the moon how come the dust flys off the wheels in perfect paranolas rather than the way you see on Earth?

Paranola's?? WTF?

That should read parabolas.( For Jesterstar that's like an even curve because there was no air resistance)

Now that reading Jesterstar's posts is actually starting to reduce my IQ I should just start cutting and pasting like everyone else in this forum...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Conspiracy, is a conspiracy....Thanks, i'll be here all night... :)

I have a theory that because some people got away with the Kennedy assasination ever since Americans see conspiracy theories everywhere.

No offence FORD...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Paranola's?? WTF?

That should read parabolas.( For Jesterstar that's like an even curve because there was no air resistance)

Now that reading Jesterstar's posts is actually starting to reduce my IQ I should just start cutting and pasting like everyone else in this forum...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

Start a thread on the moon landing DRunky and I'll own you any day.

I notice that you said nothing about NO ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON.

Hmmmmmmmmm Funny how facts seem to defy you.

[Seshmeister]

I'm losing the will to live here, I don't work all day to then do a shift as a remedial teacher at night on the internet.

I told you to look to the post below.

I'm sorry if that was cuntfusing...


Originally posted by Warham
Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

[/url]

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Start a thread on the moon landing DRunky and I'll own you any day.

I notice that you said nothing about NO ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON.

Hmmmmmmmmm Funny how facts seem to defy you.

There ya go, big boy

Have a war of intellect with Sesh.


You're roadkill waiting for the shovel if you do:D

He "owns" you [to use a phrase you can actually understand] before you begin.

How's my banning coming? I can't wait all night....

[Jesterstar]

"I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us."

This actually is not exsplaining anything. I WANT TO SEE THE SCIENTIFIC PHYSICAL PROOF. This is a statement people would make to try and satify the semi intellectual. You have to look past the pacification. Just like the bible.

" So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day. "

This holds no water what so ever. They make it sound like they spent billions of dollars to send astronauts to the moon with a DISPOSIABLE KODAK CAMERA WITH NO FLASH.

Please your argument is designed to keep the frail mind of the skeptic to afraid to beleive in the Magic contained in reality and the lies the reality they beleive in are. Facts are facts and you've provided no facts what so ever.

Oh and one more question to SQUASH your WANNA BE LOGICAL WORLD.

Who set up the Camera on the outside to get the really neat shot of Armstrong hopping down the ladder onto the surface of the moon???

I mean really. Who was running the camera and how was it in perfect frame??? I can't wait for the answer to this one.

"Uhhhh Jesterstar your so stupid they sent out a national geographic photographer that was a robot odviously."

Stop sucking on your binky's and grow up.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
There ya go, big boy

Have a war of intellect with Sesh.


You're roadkill waiting for the shovel if you do:D

He "owns" you [to use a phrase you can actually understand] before you begin.

How's my banning coming? I can't wait all night....

Sesh isn't shit. He's done nothing. Other than give long winded retorts with litterally no proof and only hearsay. But since your not smart enough to really know what real knowledge is' I'll ignore you.

I'm drinking and I'm not interested in ruining a thread untill my MODSHIP is complete.

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Other than give long winded retorts with litterally no proof and only hearsay.


IRONICY ALERT! IRONICY ALERT!

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Paranola's?? WTF?

That should read parabolas.( For Jesterstar that's like an even curve because there was no air resistance)

Now that reading Jesterstar's posts is actually starting to reduce my IQ I should just start cutting and pasting like everyone else in this forum...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

Hey now, I can count the number of time's i've copy and pasted here on one finger, lol.

My posts are all Cat Originals, from the bean pod of the one and only, me. :)
Sometimes i make sense to everyone, other times i just scratch my head and wonder how a post happens when i no longer do drugs.

It all started the day i began talking to myself. it was all well and good until the day i started asking myself questions, and then answering them.
Even at that point it was harmless, then the debates started, whoa, man that's a trip.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
IRONICY ALERT! IRONICY ALERT!

Most of my proof is in book and in the reality we live in. All you have to do is open your eyes.

I can see your not to bright by the way your afraid to beleive.

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I can see your not to bright by the way your afraid to beleive.


LOL!

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
LOL!

I know shit like this will change when I am mod.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Sesh isn't shit. He's done nothing. Other than give long winded retorts with litterally no proof and only hearsay. But since your not smart enough to really know what real knowledge is' I'll ignore you.


REAL KNOWLEDGE???? Like spelling ABOVE a 3rd grade level?



I'm drinking and I'm not interested in ruining a thread untill my MODSHIP is complete.


Is this the same "MODSHIP" you said was coming your way before they made SOMEONE ELSE the dump mod?????


or is it your MOTHERSHIP you're waiting on......








A mind is a terrible thing to waste :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I know shit like this when it runs down my leg

[Jesterstar]

http://media.snuffx.com/x/mar25q/mex27.jpg

[Jesterstar]

Care to see your True God???

http://img108.exs.cx/img108/6883/alien445rj.jpg

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar


Oh and one more question to SQUASH your WANNA BE LOGICAL WORLD.

Who set up the Camera on the outside to get the really neat shot of Armstrong hopping down the ladder onto the surface of the moon???

I mean really. Who was running the camera and how was it in perfect frame??? I can't wait for the answer to this one.

"Uhhhh Jesterstar your so stupid they sent out a national geographic photographer that was a robot odviously."

Stop sucking on your binky's and grow up.

http://brandtechnology.com/dunce.jpg

You spend a decade trying to get a man to land on the moon with hundreds of thousands of people working on it, some even smarter than you.

Amazingly one day someone said "You know this first man on the moon shit is pretty historic, you think maybe we should film it?"

So even more amazingly they fitted a camera to an arm on the outside of the lunar lander with a camera stuck on it.

It's not fucking rocket science...:)

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
http://brandtechnology.com/dunce.jpg

You spend a decade trying to get a man to land on the moon with hundreds of thousands of people working on it, some evenm smarter than you.

Amazingly one day someone said "You know this first man on the moon shit is pretty hsitoric, you think maybe we should film it?"

So even more amazingly they fitted a camera to an arm on the outside of the lunar lander with a camera stuck on it.

It's not fucking rocket science...:)

I don't see anything attached to the lunar lander dipshit. Plus that is a pretty long arm to fit on the side of the lander. I've seen the lander at the smithsonian in Washinton. They must have removed the arm after they landed.........................Show me the arm. Doesn't hold water again. OWNED> GOD DAMN sesh. Your suppose to smarter than this for lounge machine. He's a loser with nothing to live for.

[Seshmeister]

You must be trolling here.

Noone can be that dumb...

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
You must be trolling here.

Noone can be that dumb...

Cheers!

:gulp:
Why because I asked you to prove that??? The Angle of the Frame and the Distance of the shot don't support what you've said. I've seen the lander. No Giant arm. Prove it.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Care to see your True God???

http://img108.exs.cx/img108/6883/alien445rj.jpg

I agree Roth did need a good haircut...

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I agree Roth did need a good haircut...

I agree with you............YOUR OWNED>

[Dr. Love]

Actually, I'm going to have to come down off my high horse and say that I agree with Jesterstar. Given the technology of the day, there's no way they could have landed a spaceship on the moon. There's too many problems with that video.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Actually, I'm going to have to come down off my high horse and say that I agree with Jesterstar. Given the technology of the day, there's no way they could have landed a spaceship on the moon. There's too many problems with that video.

OH SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm Enjoying how Sesh can't provide a reason for the angle and distance of the shot.

[Dr. Love]

Well, truthfully, I didn't really want to question things at first. I'd always been taught that we won the space race, and that we'd beaten the Communists. There was a lot of patriotism involved. But I went back and read the arguments, and a lot of things didn't add up.

So I went searching on the internet for lunar landing pictures, and for information about it all. I read a lot off authoritative pieces about how it was a hoax and that we couldn't have done it, and it really started making sense to me.

So I went back to looking at the pictures, trying to see all the discrepancies pointed out in the articles, and they're all there. It's amazing, because now I can see it so clearly. I know what to look for. It's amazing, because the rest of you drones can't seem to question the information you're being fed.


OPEN YOUR EYES AND MINDS!!! YOU'RE BEING LIED TO!!!


I found one picture, however, that really convinced me. At first, it looked like nothing was out of the ordinary, but I noticed something weird about it.

I can't really explain it, so I'll just attach the photo.

[Dr. Love]

There it is. Undisputable proof that the whole thing was a setup. There is NO WAY that there could have been a 1969 pepsi cola lid on the moon. NO WAY.


It HAD to have been left there by a stagehand.

[Dr. Love]

WAKE UP YOU DRONES!!! THE PEPSI CAP DOES NOT LIE!!!

[Cathedral]

The pictures were taken by the Apollo lunar surface camera, and it was attached to the lander and operated by wired remote.
That is how it was able to have Armstrong perfectly placed in the frame.

Really, there is nothing hard about this shot here, and it looks to me to be really close to the lander in fact, almost as if it were attached to it, maybe?
There was no boom arm, that much is correct.
And shutter speed doesn't come into play here because they were video cameras.
What ya see in black and white was what ya got in black in white.

[Dr. Love]

CATHEDRAL.

Stop believeing the government's lies. Did you even SEE the picture I posted?

THE PROOF IS RIGHT THERE WITH THE PEPSI CAP!!

[Cathedral]

Here's that mysterious bugger right here.
The camera equipment carried on the Apollo-11 flight was comprehensive. In addition to the usual TV and small-film cameras on board, there was a special camera for near-distance stereoscopic shots of the moon mounted on the exterior of the lander.

[Jesterstar]

You can't can't prove any of that. Those facts should be readily avalable if there is nothing to hide.

[Dr. Love]

CAT. Stop believing the hype. I've posted PROOF that it was a hoax. Why can't you SEE that what Jesterstar and I are saying is the TRUTH?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
CATHEDRAL.

Stop believeing the government's lies. Did you even SEE the picture I posted?

THE PROOF IS RIGHT THERE WITH THE PEPSI CAP!!

That's not real, my degree in photgraphy told me so, lol. It was a Mountain Dew bottle cap, not Pepsi.

[Dr. Love]

Cat, Jesterstar and I can't give you the truth if you aren't willing to trust us. It was a pepsi cap. Mountain Dew doesn't taste good in space.

[Dr. Love]

I mean on a staged set for a hoax.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Why because I asked you to prove that??? The Angle of the Frame and the Distance of the shot don't support what you've said. I've seen the lander. No Giant arm. Prove it.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/dunce.jpg



http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/images/armstrong.jpg

There was a video camera mounted and extended from the side of the landing module especially for this purpose. NASA anticipated that the moment that Armstrong stepped onto the Moon would be thought as being particularly significant and something everyone would want to see.

As Armstrong started down the ladder he remotely deployed it, swinging it out from its storage position in the side of the module. Note how the left hand side of the video image is obscured by both the side of the Lunar Module and the arm of the storage compartment that lowered it. (The horizontal black bar across the middle is interference flickering across the TV screen it was filmed off.)

The way the camera was mounted meant that these first pictures were actually upside-down and had to be flipped over once received on Earth. The same camera was then removed and used to send video pictures of the rest of the lunar activities from a stand on the lunar surface.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
You can't can't prove any of that. Those facts should be readily avalable if there is nothing to hide.

Whats to hide?
Next time you go see the lander simply ask the guy this question, "Hey dude, can you show me where the camera was mounted that took Armstrong's picture as he set foot on the moon?"

I saw the lander in person too, and the mount is still attached, or at least it was at that time.

You're looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one, bro.

[Dr. Love]

Jesterstar, I guess these guys aren't as enlightened as you and me. At least WE know the truth.

WE know that the astronauts prefer the crisp, cool and refreshing taste of Pepsi.

[Jesterstar]

You both keep posting the same still. That isn't what is show from the famous footage of him walking down the ramp.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Jesterstar, I guess these guys aren't as enlightened as you and me. At least WE know the truth.

WE know that the astronauts prefer the crisp, cool and refreshing taste of Pepsi.

you prefer the crisp refreshing taste of a cock.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Cat, Jesterstar and I can't give you the truth if you aren't willing to trust us. It was a pepsi cap. Mountain Dew doesn't taste good in space.

You're right, you're right, it was my uncle that was standing stage left trying to ping caps off the space helmets.
They told him to stop, but you know how things go in my bloodline.

[Seshmeister]

I'm sick of having to own you on every one of your stupid questions.

You are the one with the burden of proof yet you have no answer to my last 10 proofs.

Tell me how they faked the rocks and the gravity.

Tell me how they kept the 400 000 people quiet.

You ever seen any 1960s sci fi?

Tell me how it doesn't look like Star Trek.

Tell me how you are going to get a job.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Dr. Love]

Jesterstar = Owned by life :(

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I'm sick of having to own you on every one of your stupid questions.

You are the one with the burden of proof yet you have no answer to my last 10 proofs.

Tell me how they faked the rocks and the gravity.

Tell me how they kept the 400 000 people quiet.

You ever seen any 1960s sci fi?

Tell me how it doesn't look like Star Trek.

Tell me how you are going to get a job.

Cheers!

:gulp:

400,000 people are easy to fool. Decisions are made by only a few. The rest is a play for all of us to beleive.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Jesterstar = Owned by life :(

Jesterstar=OWNING LIFE

You made a typo. Might want to correct it.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
You both keep posting the same still. That isn't what is show from the famous footage of him walking down the ramp.

Man, do you understand that there were pictures taken of them going up and down the ramp from different angles AFTER the camera was removed from the lander?

And bro, when i was a kid and watched this happen in real time, the footage in the still IS the footage that was broadcast to millions of homes all over the world as he stepped off the ladder.

I have no idea what you are talking about with this different angles and distances crap.

Why don't YOU post a picture of what you're talking about, in other words, prove our proof wrong cause we did what you asked, you just can't admit you have been shown the door, lol.

[Dr. Love]

You can do it when you become a mod.

:rofl:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Jesterstar = Owned by life :(

So now I have to share my ownership of him?

[Dr. Love]

No, you can just pwn him out. ;)

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Man, do you understand that there were pictures taken of them going up and down the ramp from different angles AFTER the camera was removed from the lander?

And bro, when i was a kid and watched this happen in real time, the footage in the still IS the footage that was broadcast to millions of homes all over the world as he stepped off the ladder.

I have no idea what you are talking about with this different nagles and distances crap.

Why don't YOU post a picture of what you're talking about, in other words, prove our proof wrong cause we did what you asked, you just can't admit you have been shown the door, lol.

I haven't been shown shit. You guys have tried to prove me wrong. You haven't. You posted one of the same frame. You know what i am talking about. You can easily resize a picture and move it around. You can't trust a picture or a statement. Your all not proving anything. Your just agreeing with eachother because you don't want to feel as misled as you are.

[Cathedral]

Hey, there's anew phrase you can use.
Instead of being OWNED, people can now be RENTED... :)

[Jesterstar]

Fuck that you fucks have nothing on JESTERSTAR you can't own me noone does.

This thread did what I wanted it to which is talk about what I want to talk about and come back to talking about me. You fucks are all owned.

[Dr. Love]

awwww, look at him trying to wiggle out of being owned.


How precious.... owned.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I haven't been shown shit. You guys have tried to prove me wrong. You haven't. You posted one of the same frame. You know what i am talking about. You can easily resize a picture and move it around. You can't trust a picture or a statement. Your all not proving anything. Your just agreeing with eachother because you don't want to feel as misled as you are.

Does it not worry you sometimes that we have people on this site from fucking Finland that have a better grasp of English than you?

I've heard your music and your interviews and dude, you need to go back to school and try and get some basics even before trying to learn how to play an instrument or sing.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[FORD]

The title of this thread has been changed to reflect the current content ;)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
The title of this thread has been changed to reflect the current content ;)

I've debunked two ridiculous theories in one thread...:)

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
The title of this thread has been changed to reflect the current content ;)

Did you come up with it, cuz it's fucking classic!

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Fuck that you fucks have nothing on JESTERSTAR you can't own me noone does.

This thread did what I wanted it to which is talk about what I want to talk about and come back to talking about me. You fucks are all owned.

Haaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaa, I laugh in your general direction, tool.
You are as crafty as the average 3rd grader, and that's a generous estimate at that.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Does it not worry you sometimes that we have people on this site from fucking Finland that have a better grasp of English than you?

I've heard your music and your interviews and dude, you need to go back to school and try and get some basics even before trying to learn how to play an instrument or sing.

Cheers!

:gulp:

I beleive in myself. Comments of that nature don't deter me since I exist on my own level.

The idea that there is a correct way to do things makes me laugh. first time you've ever made me laugh

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
The title of this thread has been changed to reflect the current content ;)

LOL, dude that is crazy funny...
But ya know, it still has relevence since the moon is in the heavens.

Man, that's one edit that ripped me sides open.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I've Lived a empty life in two ridiculous theories in one thread...:)

OWNED

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I beleive in myself. Comments of that nature don't deter me since I exist on my own level.


Must be a bear always looking up for that scary heel to come down on you.
Um, the gutter isn't considered a level, dude.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
OWNED

Changing quotes is not owning. At least have some creativity. The knowledge of Jesus walking on the moon is at stake!

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Must be a bear always looking up for that scary heel to come down on you.
Um, the gutter isn't considered a level, dude.

If you saw how I really lived you realize. How incorrect you are. But there I go talking about myself again. Which is what you all interested in.

[Cathedral]

Ally, there is a joke in your last comment, but i'm afraid to tell it.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Changing quotes is not owning. At least have some creativity. The knowledge of Jesus walking on the moon is at stake!

I invented Changing posts back in 2002. Before me noone knew what to do.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
If you saw how I really lived you realize. How incorrect you are. But there I go talking about myself again. Which is what you all interested in.

I wasn't talking about your surroundings, i was talking about your mental capacity, gutter-brain.
Besides, your lifestyle, as provided by mommy and daddy, isn't the topic here.
Million dollar home, fifty dollar trailer, makes no diff to me.

You are a tool, and tools are meant to be, say it with me, OWNED!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I beleive in myself. Comments of that nature don't deter me since I exist on my own level.

The idea that there is a correct way to do things makes me laugh. first time you've ever made me laugh

You need to know the rules before you can break them.

If you don't have the skillz to communicate verbally, musically or in writing then you're fucked mate.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Ally, there is a joke in your last comment, but i'm afraid to tell it.

Oh no Cat. You must cuz I cannot figure it out!

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I invented Changing posts back in 2002. Before me noone knew what to do.

Actually, I think I've seen Ford do that before 2002.


IN THE QUOTE BOX - NOT THE ACTUAL POST...you people all jump to conclusions!

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
You need to know the rules before you can break them.

If you don't have the skillz to communicate verbally, musically or in writing then you're fucked mate.

Cheers!

:gulp:

And Sesh comes up from behind to lower the "Apollo Lunar Lander Boom" across the back of the head.

Now we can finish him off with the Illudium Pew 36 Explosive Space Modulator....

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Oh no Cat. You must cuz I cannot figure it out!

Well, please forgive me Lord, but here goes.

About Jesus being on the moon and all that....What better place to practice walking on water but a zero gravity atmosphere.

I know, that's bad..... :(

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Well, please forgive me Lord, but here goes.

About Jesus being on the moon and all that....What better place to practice walking on water but a zero gravity atmosphere.

I know, that's bad..... :(

LOL!

I bet Jesterstar could write a conspiracy about walking on water. We just need to wait for it.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I wasn't talking about your surroundings, i was talking about your mental capacity, gutter-brain.
Besides, your lifestyle, as provided by mommy and daddy, isn't the topic here.
Million dollar home, fifty dollar trailer, makes no diff to me.

You are a tool, and tools are meant to be, say it with me, OWNED!

Mommy and Daddy cut me off because I have a drinking and drug problem. OWNED AGAIN.

funny to watch you toss your christian ideals aside just to be superior.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Well, please forgive me Lord, but here goes.

About Jesus being on the moon and all that....What better place to practice walking on water but a zero gravity atmosphere.

I know, that's bad..... :(

I've made you be sarcastic to your lord. Your owned. End of the Story.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Mommy and Daddy cut me off because I have a drinking and drug problem. OWNED AGAIN.


That's actually pretty funny...:)

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
That's actually pretty funny...:)

What is funnier is that it's true and we all like eachother. Mom and Dad like me and shit. But they ain't giving me money to get drunk and high anymore.

I own bitches on the net for that.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I've made you be sarcastic to your lord. Your owned. End of the Story.

It's ok, he's a forgiving Lord, and he knows my heart, boy.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
What is funnier is that it's true and we all like eachother. Mom and Dad like me and shit. But they ain't giving me money to get drunk and high anymore.

I own bitches on the net for that.

They must be very proud.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
It's ok, he's a forgiving Lord, and he knows my heart, boy.

But you've comprimised your Heart for entertainment of people on a David lee roth board.

How loyal must your lord feel you are???

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
They must be very proud.

They ain't disappointed.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
What is funnier is that it's true and we all like eachother. Mom and Dad like me and shit. But they ain't giving me money to get drunk and high anymore.

I own bitches on the net for that.

You mean, you own dudes on the net for that. You are so lost in your own fanatsy, boy.
But some day you'll be MOD, and the world will finally be right for you, won't it?

Don't hold your breath.....

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
You mean, you own dudes on the net for that. You are so lost in your own fanatsy, boy.
But some day you'll be MOD, and the world will finally be right for you, won't it?

Don't hold your breath..... \\


Actually i'll be a mod. Before your Jesus returns.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
But you've comprimised your Heart for entertainment of people on a David lee roth board.

How loyal must your lord feel you are???

Compromised? not hardly, it wasn't all that for cryin out loud.
I've heard worse on Christian Comedy Programs, butt-munch.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
\\


Actually i'll be a mod. Before your Jesus returns.

No you won't, I have personally Black Listed you, it ain't gonna happen, trust me on that... :)

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Compromised? not hardly, it wasn't all that for cryin out loud.
I've heard worse on Christian Comedy Programs, butt-munch.

Butt Munch??? The 80's Ended about 15 years ago. I let it go, you should also.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Cathedral
No you won't, I have personally Black Listed you, it ain't gonna happen, trust me on that... :)

Actually not nevcesarrily, sorry Cat but I blacklisted Jesus a while back...

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Butt Munch??? The 80's Ended about 15 years ago. I let it go, you should also.

You're right, Butt-Pirate is more like it.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Butt Munch??? The 80's Ended about 15 years ago. I let it go, you should also.

The 80s are back now. Keep up with the times :D

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
\\


Actually i'll be a mod. Before your Jesus returns.

you might be right about that. It would be a sign of the apocalypse.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I invented Changing posts back in 2002. Before me noone knew what to do.

Perhaps had you put that nugget on your Resume you wouldn't be sorting mail for a "living"

:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar

. Mom and Dad like me and shit. But they ain't giving me money to get drunk and high anymore.

I own bitches on the net for that.


Really?

Who signs your paychecks for THAT ???

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Jester might have invented post-changing, but he sure didn't invent proper spelling.