The old testament has a prophecy of the coming of Jesus. Little note i thought i'd put for the following information of when the old testament was written. Is it coincidence that this was wrote thousands of years before the coming of Christ and it just so happened?


The Old Testament was written over a period of some centuries as noted above. Moses wrote the first five books known as the Pentateuch, which included the editing of Genesis into its final form from oral or earlier written records. In this latter regard some scholars consider that Abraham himself wrote much of Genesis, since we now know that writing was in use for centuries before Abraham. His birth in 2161 BC would then date his writing considerably earlier than Moses, probably done during his time in Canaan. These tablets would then have been preserved and handed down to eventually come into the hands of Moses. In terms of preservation it is worth noting that this is a very small time considering that tablets have been found in the 20th Century which date to around this time. This theory, known as the 'Tablet Theory' is advanced by some Bible scholars to explain the 'toledoth phrases' found in a number of places in Genesis which mark the end of a tablet dealing with a particular subject. This theory dates the original writing somewhat earlier than its final edited form which would be what has been handed down to us

Simple:

It was a self fulfilled prophecy. The powers of Rome had access to the old scriptures and the story of the coming of a savior was well known by anyone who could read. (Not many could.)

Therefore they purposely had the new testament written (and much of it was plagiarized scripts) and they created the character of Jesus and billed him as the savior returned in the flesh.

This was all for the purpose of creating a new religion that would join a lot of religious sects together under one church.


The entire new testament was written by the Piso family who were big wealthy big shots in Rome at the time.

THE NT BOOKS:
MARK: The gospel of Mark was written in a prototype form before it was later crafted
into the form that we are familiar with. The earlier version was called 'Ur Marcus' and is
also known/called 'Q' (for 'Quelle', which is German for the 'source').

Our latest findings regarding the early version of Mark show that this was written at about the time of Claudius Caesar, by the grandfather of Arrius Piso. That version was apparently
only a bare sketch and most likely did not give a name to the 'messiah'. That appears to
have been done later by the person who actually played 'Jesus' in the Gospels - Arrius Piso

The version that we are familiar with was written about the year 73 CE by Arrius Calpurnius Piso.

Arrius Piso was a Roman on his father's side, but a descendant of King Herod on his mother's side and therefore he knew well about the Jewish religion. He was also a close relative to the Flavians and even though secretly he could inherit and use the Flavian name by his mother's descent from them, he gave a story about receiving it from the emperor Vespasian (in his other identity as Flavius Josephus).

MATTHEW: Matthew too, was authored by Arrius Calpurnius Piso. This was written about
the year 75 CE.

LUKE: Was written 85-90 CE by Arrius C. Piso and Pliny the Younger.

JOHN: The 4th Gospel, or the Gospel of John was written by Justus Calpurnius Piso, a son of Arrius C. Piso. This son was very much like this father in his hatred towards humanity. This Gospel was written circa 105 CE.

ACTS: The Acts of the Apostles was written by Arrius Piso and his son Justus, with some
help from Pliny the Younger 96-100 CE. By the way, there is a portion of Acts that is missing from most English translations/interpretations. That is the 29th Chapter, which has 10 verses.

ROMANS: The epistle to the Romans was written by another son of Arrius Piso (Proculus Piso)
and Claudia Phoebe about the year 100. Claudia Phoebe is known in history as the wife of the
emperor Trajan (as Pompeia Plotina). She wrote the last few verses of this epistle, which many
copies of the NT in English leave out because that portion was written by a woman. This is
obvious, and she even gives her name as 'Phoebe'. You can tell where the previous male author
leaves off and the female author begins because the male author "signs off" with 'Amen'. She
wrote the last verses (25-27) of Romans, Chapter 16.

1st CORINTHIANS, GALATIONS, and EPHESIANS: were all written between 100-103 CE by
Pliny the Younger.
2nd CORINTHIANS and PHILIPPIANS: were written by Justus C. Piso between 103-105 CE.

COLOSSIANS: was written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus (Julianus was the father of
the emperor Marcus Aurelius, but this is seen in history only by his use of another name 'Verus').

1st TIMOTHY: was written by Pliny the Younger circa 105 CE.

2nd TIMOTHY: was written by Justus C. Piso (also known in history by other names), c. 107 CE.

1st and 2nd THESSALONIANS: were written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus with some help
from his nephew Silanus between the years 105-110 CE.

TITUS: was written by Pliny the Younger circa 103-105 CE.

PHILEMON: was written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus.

JAMES: was written by Justus C. Piso around 110 CE.
1st and 2nd PETER: were written by Proculus Piso between 110-115 CE.
1st, 2nd and 3rd JOHN: were written by Julius Calpurnius Piso (who was still another son of
Arrius Calpurnius Piso), between 110-115 CE.
JUDE: was written by Julius C. Piso also, between the years 110-115 CE.

THE REVELATION OF JOHN THE DIVINE: was written by Julius Calpurnius Piso, who
may have been the son of the other Julius Calpurnius Piso (who had the same name), and
this was written in or about the year 137 CE. It was not the book of the NT, just written as
the end of the story.

HEBREWS: This was written by a grandson of Arrius Piso named Flavius Arrianus circa
140 CE. Flavius Arrianus was the real name of the historian who wrote as 'Appian'.
This person was the half-brother of the emperor Antoninus Pius. Antoninus Pius, by the way,
also wrote history under the name of Suetonius. Flavius Arrianus also wrote other works,
most notably, he wrote under the name of 'Ptolemy'.
----------

"The true authorship of the New Testament"
By Abelard Reuchlin

you claim and i quote "It was a self fulfilled prophecy". May i ask you how someone could self fulfill preaching as a child and doing miracles as such? How could someone just say hey lets try to make it appear our child is the savior prophesied in the bible.

The entire story in the new Testament is simply pure fiction. All of it, pure fiction, fraud etc. It was written to appear to fulfill ancient prophecy and used to create a new religion under the control of the Roman Empire.

so i assume we've never been to the moon or even have a space program? It's all just pure fiction FRAUD. A conspiracy made by the government to make us think they are smarter then they are? Cause what PROOF do they have that it has happened? Pictures? heck i could make pictures to show that Bill Clinton and Will Smith lives with me in my trailer.

Truly,

Besides, the wealth of information conveyed in the gospels actually proves that Jesus couldn't have been this so-called "Christ". Not the other way around.

Truthfully, I have not made up my mind about the moon landing thing. But it has little to do with the fraud of the New Testament.

So if you recognize how easy it is to fool someone why do you fall for the Hebrew's crap?

They are claiming that you are a sinner and have willfully and knowingly turned against your creator,

At least Government isn't accusing you of that that even if they did fake going to the moon.

You should know that the Hebrews are liars. Unless you truly have willfully and knowingly turned against God like they claim.

Personally, I know that I have never knowningly and willingly turned against my creator as they have claimed. Therefore I know they are liars. It's as simple as that. They can't fool me because I see through them like a plate glass window.

I have heard many Christians warn that Satan can appear as a beautiful angel of light and that he is the great deceiver. Indeed, he is called the Light bearer. Some eastern mysteries reveal that the Christian God is Satan himself and has deceived his followers. When I see the evil perpetrated by the catholic church throughout history I find this easy to believe.

If Satan really is a great deceiver, then what makes Christians so sure they have not been deceived? I see some Christian churches practicing strange rituals speaking in tongue, having convulsions, being possessed by what they claim is the "holy spirit." I think these are demons,(or aliens) not the holy spirit. Or at the very least, they are faked or simply a strange form of hypnosis, induced by delusions.

These same people who practice in this church (in my town) had the audacity to call me 'evil' because I was doing free tarot card readings. I think they are insane.

Well, just think about what the Hebrews are saying:

They claim that God told them to stone unruly chidren to death.

They claim that God told them to stone heathens to death.

They followed God into a dessert and he got them lost for 40 years!

They claim that God gave them a "Promised Land", yet this land turned out to already be occupied by another culture.

Then they claim that God told them to murder everyone in this other culture including the women, children, and babies.

Sure sounds to me like they are following some sort of demon. Certainly not anything I would call a "God".

I see absolutely no reason to follow the Hebrews down their path.

It's bad enough that a lot of people are falling for that one, but then to have them try to convince me to follow that so-called "God" is really an insult to my intelligence, and to my rigtheousness.

I'm far better off just being who I am naturally than to follow such a clearly evil "God".

The wage of sin "disobedience" is death.

That is only a law passed down from a Master to his slave. This Galaxy has many alien cultures that for millions of years have utilized slavery as their way of life. They have brought this way of life to the earth and they have declared themselves Gods.

They are not Gods.

(Don't you ever watch Star gate? ...Geeeeze.)

To use some of Bill Maher's words:

We can agree that the Old Testament came before the New Testament, correct?

The only thing that proves is that the New Testament came after the New Testament.

I find it MUCH more likely that those who wrote the NT, read the OT, and made the prophecies fit.

Says who?

The Hebrews?

You should know better than to believe that those idiots speak for God.

They would also claim that you are guilty of purposefully and knowningly refusing to obey God. Is that true?

Then they claim to SPEAK for God. They're clearly just trying to give you a guilt complex and try to make you obey THEM.

I have absolutely no guilt complex concerning my standing with my creator. But I most certainly would have a guilt complex if I followed the teachings of the Hebrews! What a bunch of arrogant yo-yos.

that is plausible ,,,,though it would require outright LYING about the miracles Christ performed while he was here, or his resurrection

[sarcasm]yeah, and we all know that people don't lie[/sarcasm]

EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID!

The NT is a work of fiction. Plagiarized fiction to boot.

So? What's so hard about realizing that the authors of the New Testament did indeed lie?

Matthew claimed that God spoke to a crowd of people proclaiming that Jesus is is beloved son in whom he's well pleased. Yet there is no other record of any such event, not in the scriptures, nor in historical accounts from outside the scriptures. My conclusion is that Matthews does ineed make things up.

Matthew is also the only one to claim that a multitude of saints arose from their gaves at the same time that Jesus was ressurected. He even claims that these saints went into the holy city and made themselves known to the people there. Yet no other gospels tell of such a thing, nor are there any historical records of any such event happening in the holy city. So again, my conclusion is that whoever wrote the book of Matthew has no problem making things up as he goes.

In short, is there ANY REASON that I should believe that these authors don't lie or make things up? The answer is clearly no. I have no reason at all to believe that these authors were trustworthy.

After all, they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. How could they possibly know that? Clearly, at the very best, they are pretending to know things that they obviously cannot possibly even known.

Finally, just look at the lengths that modern religious people go to to support these stories. If modern people are so anxious to stretch things to support this story then I can only imagine that the original authors were even more determined convince their readers.

So yes, believing that these authors would makes things up to convince readers of their stories is extremely easy for me to accept. Especially considering the FACT that these same people created a Church that sent armies out to destroy pagan temples and threaten to harm or kill anyone who refuses to BELIEVE in their scriptures.

Clearly the people who wanted to force these stories onto the public would stop at NOTHING. Lying would be trival compared with destorying temples and murdering non-believers. These religious folks were RUTHLESS people!

The original "Christians" (meaning the authors of the New Testament), were like the Grinch that Stole Christmas, only they were stealing JESUS!

You need to stop and think about what actually happened.

Some guy came into the area and started teaching moral values that EXCEED those taught in the Torah (or Old Testament). He had quite a following and argued with the scribes and Pharisees of the day (the priests and rabbis)

Jesus was teaching things that cleary when AGAINST the teachings of the Old Testament. However, overall, what he taught was highly moral and loving. He taught people to love their bothers and sisters as well as their neighbors and basically to love everyone.

He taught them to forgive one another instead of seeking vengence like had been taught in the Old Testament. He taught them not to stone or even judge people to be sinners. All of this is blaspheme against the Old Testament. Yet Jesus tried to do this in a way that was unoffensive. None the less, a lot of people became offended anyway.

Finally the authories found a reason to arrest him, and an angry mob found a way to convince pilot to crucify him.

After that happened there was a LOT of controversy over just who this man was and what he actually stood for. One "side" wanted to claim that Jesus was "The Christ" and somehow came to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, whilst many others saw Jesus as someone who actually rejected that ancient religion.

The debates raged for years. Finally, the people who happened to have the most authority decided to write down THERE VERSION of the arguments (claiming that Jesus was indeed "The Christ", thus SUPPORTING their original religion), and once they wrote it all up, they shoved it down the throats of the masses threatening to kill anyone who dared to reject their "Scriptures" as being the "Holy Word of Yahweh and his Son Jesus, The Christ".

Thus the religion of Chrisitanity was born. Even many Jews did not buy into this theasco. Neither did the Muslims.

It should be cystal clear at this point that none of this could possibly have anything to do with the creator of humanity. To allow the sacrifice of his Son to become such a theasco and only be believed by some cultures and not others would truly be insane and inept of a creator.

Thus as far as I'm concerned, that's pretty positive proof that this story cannot be from the creator of humanity.

I dont believe the authors of the bible/gospels did.