For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Undeceived]

Hi, Thom. You have a keen mind. Let me see if I can answer some of your points.

Now - we KNOW that genesis is pretty much a bunch of ancient myth and legend. IT has errors in the very first page (morning and evening on earth are cause by the rotation of the earth on its axis - based on which part of the surface is facing the earth at a given time - NO SUN - no morning and evening).

I presume you're referring to the fact that there's no sun, yet the Bible refers to a "day." Genesis 5:
"God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

God is calling light "day." That does not mean an actual day with light (as we know it) passed. There was evening and morning--but those need not be determined by sunlight. I don't see the issue here. The Bible is vague, but the writer(s) of Genesis also knew that the sun determined what was a day. Obviously they were referring to something other than a conventional day with 24hrs between sunrises because there was no sun. No astronomical knowledge necessary.

It is clear that the bible is a writing of ancient MYTH and legend - when they say that god created two great lights - the moon does not generate light - it only reflects the sun's light.

A light is a light. The moon need not generate light to be called a light. Genesis was written for people on earth, from their perspective.

We also know that there are plenty of seed bearing plants that are POISONOUS to humans - so a human cannot use every seed bearing plant for food.

In Eden, there was no sin or disease or anything else evil. No seeds were poisonous. At least, that seems a reasonable interpretation. When sin entered the world, there was enough damage to go around.

THe story of Adam and EVE is a nice fairy tale - but there were LOTS of humans on earth long before 6000 years ago

This could constitute a whole thread by itself. I think you need to scrutinize your evidence very carefully. Radiometric dating can be innaccurate at times, especially after a global flood. If you seek evidence for the flood, look here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/i...ting-4.jpg And here: http://creation.com/the-yellowstone-petrified-forests And here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_Peat_..._they_form All these inconsistencies (even strata, petrified forests, coal beds) formed in same time frame--between the Paleozoic and Precambrian periods. Coincidentally, this is also when the Cambrian explosion, the largest recorded extinction in history, occurred.

S o - why did the christ - in his diatribe against WOMEN in 1 Timothy 2 - use the sin of EVE as a reason why women should be completely submissive to and have NO authority over men? ANd that is in the New Testament.

Paul wrote the letter, and it was directed towards a particular group of untrained Ephesian women. Paul is using Eve's story to illustrate that the Ephesian women are also vulnerable to deception, and therefore should not be put in a position of authority. And he is not so partial. 1 Corinthians 11:11-12:
"Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman."

ANd what is the moral tale of the Great Flood - when you MUST consider that there were at least 10% of the population of people UNDER the age of reason and responsibility and could NOT have done anything to deserve to be "drowned".
How about the tale of the Passover - what did the first born of Egypt (Especially those under age as well) do to deserve to be MURDERED because the Pharaoh - over which they Had NO control - would NOT budge?

This seems to be the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" The answer is, there are no good people. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Ephesians 2:3 states that we are all "by nature children of wrath," or, by nature, sinful. Our hearts are not pure, and never have been. Being under the age of reason does not matter. That is why we so desperately need God's forgiveness and cure.

WE are told that the "good god" does not TEMPT people - but he tempted Abraham to murder his son.

To "tempt" means to entice someone to do something by appealing to their personal desires. Abraham did not desire to murder his son. I believe the word you are looking for is "command." God can command anything. He told Abraham to sacrifice his son so that we might read the story, which happens to be a perfect pre-enactment of Jesus' sacrifice. Isaac stands for us. We deserve to die, but God provides the ram (Jesus) to take our place on the sacrificial altar.

OF course - Abraham should have REFUSED to do so - because god would NOT ask him to murder his son.

Abraham thought the same as you, which is why he told Isaac "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering" (Gen 22:8). He trusted God to spare or resurrect Isaac.

Abraham LIED to the god - when he said that Isaac was his ONLY son - because Ishmael was ALSO HIS SON.

Isaac was the only son of the promise (Gen 21:12).

one would expect that there would be a massive amount of documentation of the christ on earth DURING the GOLDEN AGE OF ROME - where they recorded the results of Tortoise races - and we st\ill have those results.

Historians in Jesus' day were either Pharisees or subjects of Herod or Pilate, all of which despised him. Mentioning Jesus would have been a form of honor, which they obviously refused to give. And you overstate the circumstances. There are no contemporary mentions of Pilate either (while archaeology confirms his existence). Nor was much attention given to the other pretend Messiahs who came along every couple years.

There is nothing that these religions said that is new - the so called golden rule - was said in the Rig Veda - long before the christ - and said by dozens of noted people before the christ as well. THe morality of the bible is nothing that is not in Confucius or Buddha - neither of which believe in a "god".

The golden rule:
In Confucianism: “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.”
Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
Hinduism: "One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self."
Humanism: "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you."
Jesus: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Do you see the difference? The Bible calls for agape, or self-sacrificial love. The closest Buddhism comes is in its denial of the self-- "since the self doesn't exist we ought not to care for it." But we should expect some religions to come close, because God is our common Creator. He made us in His image, instilling us with a conscience able to discern between right and wrong.

When YOU can get ALL christians to accept the SAME story completely - get back to us - with the new bible - that has no errors in it

The Bible is prone to no error, people are. Would you throw away a book simply because some individuals misunderstand it?