Summations Only

Source and evidence please. There is no mention of Jesus by Jews until hundreds of years after the myth started.

Interesting article.

Dwise 1, the Bible is, in one sense, a Book about God and the
nation of Isreal. And, those nations that come into contact with
Israel.The 10 tribe nation of Israel were settled into Northern and
Western Europe before Rome ever became a major power.When the Bible talks about a beast it refers to a king or
kingdom. And the type of beast describes the characteristics
of the king/kingdom.These beasts had profound effects on the nations of Israel
and Judah.In 321 A.D., Constantine issued a civil decree making Sunday
a day of rest from labor. All judges and civil people were told
acknowledge both the sun and the venerable day of the sun.There was no wiggle room for disobeying the Emperor.
Sunday was a mark of Rome, the beast.In 363-364 A.D., the Council of Laodicea issued a decree
(Canon 29) stating:"Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but
must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day; and,
if they can, resting then as Christians.""But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be
anathema (excommunicated) from Christ."The mark of the second beast in Revelation 13 is also
Sunday.The main reason popes held power over the emperors
were that the church held the power to excommunicate
an entire nation if the Emperor or kings went against
them. The people would go against the secular powers
if they believed they would be shut off from God.This second (or image of the first beast) beast (pope)
boldly states that "We hold upon this earth the place of
God Almighty.Is this not extreme blasphemy?Daniel speaks of this same second beast in 7:25:"And He shall speak great words against the most High,
and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and
think to change times and laws...."

Dwise 1, Revelation 13:3 "And I saw one of his (beast)
head as it was wounded to death; and his deadly wound
was healed; and all the world wondered after the beast."The Roman Empire lasted from 31 B.C. till 476 A.D.Rome was conquered by three Germanic (assyrian)
tribes:Vandals; Heruli; and, Ostrogoths.However it was not Charlemage who returned Rome to
glory; it was Justinian 1, in 554 A.D.This was the first head of the seven headed beast with
ten horns.Every head of this beast refers to the Holy Roman
Empire, or union of church and state.Charlemagne was the second head of this beast, or
revival of the system.Granted that he was more resourceful than Justinian 1,
but Justinian was the first head of the union between
church and state.The sixth head was Hitler. The Vatican assisted with
The escape of many Nazis to Argentina.The Nazis realized that they would lose WW2 in 1943.
The Bible says they went I to the bottomless pit, which
simply means they went underground.They have been planning all these years for the next war.The seventh head, or seventh revival, of the Holy Roman
Empire will unite the RCC and 10 nations.This seventh head is the same as the feet and ten toes
of the image in Daniel 2.Read verse 44 where Christ destroys this universal church
and 10 kings.He will at that time set His Kingdom up. And, this time he
will rule over it.

You post so much superfluous BS!The Jesus Freaks were also obsessed with that nonsense. I became an atheist by reading the Bible and realizing I couldn't believe that stuff. The Jesus Freaks only confirmed how unbelievable their nonsense is, thus fully immunizing me. Creationism (especially YEC, though OEC and ID are just the same thing while avoiding the weakest part of YEC which are the YE claims) and creationist made my immunization good for the rest of my life.You're just an extra booster.Thank you for your zealous support and contributions to the growth and spread of atheism.

So far so good, though I'd have to check on your purported "Assyrian" connection -- I'm more familiar with the later stages of the Völkerwanderung though there's evidence of Gaelic settlement early on in Turkey (eg, Galatia).Does your SDAism also claim that American Indians are descendents of the ten Lost Tribes of Israel or is that more of a Mormon thing? It is so difficult for normals to keep track of all the bizarre beliefs in all the thousands of Christian sects. Kind of like trying to keep straight all the story lines in all the soap operas (both daytime and primetime) or all the story arcs over the years in even just one of the major lines of comic books (including all the retconnings).
​ And there it is! You suddenly veer hard left (read "sinistra") and spin out of control into the weeds. We know the history of the Holy Roman Empire, so we can plainly see the falsehoods in your attempt to change history! If everything you say that we can check turns out to be false (if not outright lies), then how could you ever expect us to accept those things you say that we cannot check (eg, your pronouncements about the supernatural)?Justinian in Byzantium had no role in the founding of the Holy Roman Empire, which was formed in Western Europe (relating it to modern-day geography, starting in the North of France and spreading through France and into Germany and Northern Italy) by one of the Germanic tribes which had flooded into the Roman Empire leading to its collapse (the attack on and sacking of Rome was more of a coup de grâce).Although Rome and the Western Empire fell, the Eastern Empire (AKA Byzantium) survived with its capital at Constantinople. Christianity was already splitting between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox with Roman Catholic being spread in Western Europe and Eastern Orthodox being spread to the East especially among the Russ -- the Cyrillic alphabet, which incorporated Greek letters, shows the influence of those Orthodox missionaries.By the 10th Century CE Byzantium came under attack by the Turks, leading to them later appealing to the West for military support which started with the first crusade around 1095. In 1453 Constantinople fell to the Turks.Out of that history came a religious and cultural teaching among the Russians about the shifting seat of "true Christianity". First there was Rome, but then it fell and Constantinople became the "Second Rome". And when the "Second Rome" fell, then Moscow became the "Third Rome".So if you want to look for the "restoration of Rome to glory", then you would do far better to look to Moscow and the Russian Empire instead of to the Holy Roman Empire.Like I keep trying to tell you (but you choose to remain willfully stupid about): we know the history! I've noticed that "true Christians" seem to have a very broken sense of the linear progression of time from past to present such that they keep mixing up the order in very egregious ways.Revelation was written centuries before the formation of the Holy Roman Empire and even longer before the Holy Roman Empire even got that name. Therefore, it could not have been written with the Holy Roman Empire in mind.Yet again, we know the history of that, so please stop trying to muck it all up. First you lied about evolution and we checked your claims and exposed them to be lies.Then you lied about the radiocarbon dating method and we checked your claims and exposed them to be lies.Then you spread right wingnut conspiracy theories which we checked and exposed to be lies.And now you make false statements about history which we have checked and exposed to be false.Everything you've said that can be checked has been checked and proven to be false.You also blather on about things that cannot be checked, namely about the supernatural. Why would you expect us to believe you about that and how could you possibly expect us to believe you about the supernatural when everything else you've posted has turned out to be false?

Why reject belief in God on account of the Bible? You could reject the God of the Bible and still believe in God ... even a Creator God.

Wow! You really have no clue what atheism is nor what atheists think or believe! You are such an idiot!Who cares about the gods? At most, they are just a sidebar, not worth wasting much time on. Whereas you theists may see your god as all-important as some All-Father, for atheists gods are just gods, a dime a dozen.While there's no one single atheist viewpoint (we're not Catholics after all!), I think that my viewpoint would speak for most.It's never been about any rejection of a particular god (you theists do that all the time) or even gods in general (that next step you don't take), but rather it's about rejection of religion and religious dogma. There are no beliefs about gods without religion, nor any gods for that matter. Religion is the bathwater that we're throwing out the window and gods are just one tiny soap bubble in that bathwater.Reading the Bible informed me that I could not believe what religions based on it would require me to believe. If you don't believe that stuff and cannot believe it, then why stick around? For the coffee?Please pull your head out of the scum you suck in while bottom-feeding, and try to finally get a clue.

You said "I became an atheist [i][b]by reading the Bible[/i][/b]". But now you're saying something different ... it's not the Bible that turned you into an atheist - you're an atheist bcoz you can't believe in any God in any way, shape or form.You should have said that in the first place. Nope, I don't buy that. You could reject all religions and religious dogma and still believe in God. In fact, that was my position for many years, until I returned to the Catholic faith.Atheists may cite different reasons for not believing in God, but the bottom-line is they become atheists simply because they don't want to believe that there is a God.Here's how it goes:
If you want to believe in God, you'll find a way.
If you don't want to believe in God, you'll find a way.

There is a very good reason for not having said that in the first place: THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!To start with, I went back to my message that you "quoted" me from and I never said that there! Just exactly where did you pull that "quote" from? If you didn't, then do not falsely claim that you are quoting me! If you want to describe what I said without directly quoting me, then quote me indirectly! -- it's so simple to do in English, unlike in German where you have to use the subjunctive (I think one of the uses for the subjunctive by the Romance language also includes indirect quotes). Also, when I want to use quotation mechanisms without actually quoting, I always try to be sure to say "paraphrasing" or "quoting from memory". But if you're going to quote, then quote; if you aren't, then don't!I took to reading the Bible in order to learn what I was supposed to believe -- admittedly, I was proceeding with a naïve assumption of bibilical literalism. I found that I simply could not believe what I was reading. If being a Christian required me to believe stuff that I simply could not believe, then how could I be one?A "Christian God" (which is what you mean, though there are so many different versions) is part and parcel of Christianity. How could one reject Christianity and yet still keep parts of it like Communion or the Ten Commandments (I replaced those with the Boy Scout Oath and Law, recognizing those as rather good moral guidelines -- Lord Baden-Powell wrote that the Oath and Law are actually better guidelines then the Ten Commandments because instead of a lot of "thou shalt not!" they tell you what to do (eg, in breaking a bad habit you will almost surely fail if you keep thinking "don't do it!" than if instead you think "I'll do this positive thing instead." ) ).The only thing that a "Christian God" is good for is within Christianity. Leave Christianity, why drag that dead weight along with you? Besides, all most Christians use "God" for is to justify the bad things that they do, so, again, who needs that? Which god? We have created about 188,000 gods. Which one are you talking about? Why that particular one?Yeah, that can happen. It's called self-delusion and it is considered to be pathological (ie, a sickness).Someone could hand me a magic feather and tell me that if I hold it I can fly. I know that that would not work, so why would I believe it? I mean, I want to be able to fly, but I know that that will not accomplish that goal. Worse, if I decided that I really wanted to believe it so I decided to believe it, then I would be suffering from a mental illness.Outside of suffering from mental illness (even just a mild case), we cannot decide to believe or not believe. Either we believe or we don't. You should read some atheists' deconversion testimonials; I would recommend Dan Barker's in his book, "godless".As a Christian, especially a fanatic like a life-long fundamentalist, goes through the process of deconversion, he almost never does so voluntarily. He never decided to stop believing, but rather, he found that none of it adds up anymore and he just cannot continue to believe. He finds that things he used to believe turn out to just not be true anymore. Knowing those things to not be true, he finds it difficult to continue believing them, especially if he wants to remain honest. He finds himself sliding inexorably to deconversion solely because that is what honesty demands regardless of what he wants. And in almost all testimonials, they describe that process of deconversion as excruciatingly painful and they wished so hard that it wasn't happening. But once you have seen the light, how can you go back to the darkness?BTW, I believe that that explains why creationists are so incredibly dishonest. True, they are forced to use lies since they are denying reality so there's nothing else for them to use to support creationism except for lies. And they mustRead some deconversion testimonials. Search for site like ex-christians.net (typing from memory, so Google). And please do not troll them. You cannot save them, because they are already saved (from Christianity).  ADVICE AND NOTE ON dBCodes and HTML codes: 

You forgot the one overriding reason: There is no reason (evidence) to 'believe' in any kind of god especially one as cruel, bloody and evil as yours.

Dredge, you ask where does the RCC state that the Bible
does not support Sunday worship.Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Father's, 92nd ed., p.89
freely admits:"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and
you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification
of Sunday.""The scriptures enforce the religious observance of
Saturday, a day which we (the Catholic Church) never
sanctify.""The Catholic Church... by virtue of her Devine mission,
changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."When asked whether the Church could prove they had
power to make changes--this reply."Had she not the power she could not have done that in
which all modern religion is agree with her-she could not
have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day
of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh
day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.

Wow, this is some important shit!

Dwise 1, a zygote, barely two days old, would know
that Revelation was written before the Holy Roman
Empire came on the scene.Jesus, through the Apostle John, was revealing
future events, events that would affect both
Israel and Judah.Anyone can write about events that have already
occurred. It requires revelations to accurately write
about future events.The Books of Daniel and Revelation support each
other. Both Books tell of past and future events.Some of Daniel's visions of the future were so
terrifying that he would feel ill for several days
after experiencing them.Daniel asked God for the meanings of the end-time
events that He had visions of. Daniel 12:8.God's reply in verse 9: "Go thy way Daniel; for the
words are closed up and sealed till the time of
the end."In other words, these were future events, and they
would be understood by His Church at that time.This is little bit off the subject, but you brought it up.You have done nothing to disprove that Radiocarbon
Dating is flawed.Nor have you posted anything that cast doubt on
Creation.In fact, you have increased my belief in God and
Creation.

Do you and Phat get your bumper-stickers at the same store?