Why would a robot maker enter and be born by a robot and become a robot himself to save robots from their sins?

In the same way, why would the Creator enter and be born of Mary, another man's wife, to save His creation from their sins? Over to those who believe this nonsense.

God Almighty of the Original Torah is the only True God and did not enter into his creation to be born in order to save His creation from their sins.

You are reasoning it with human logic which is extremely limited.
If it were by human logic no one would come up with such. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!!

Using our extremely limited reasoning you can also ask who created the creator and why did he suddenly start creating?

DaddyCoool:
You are reasoning it with human logic which is extremely limited.
If it were by human logic no one would come up with such. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!!

Using our extremely limited reasoning you can also ask who created the creator and why did he suddenly start creating?

And by you extremely limited logic you believe many of his creation did not hear about him being born of Mary till their nations were conquered and this your limited logic was force on many to believe two thousand years later.

MindHacker9009:


And by you extremely limited logic you believe many of his creation did not hear about him being born of Mary till their nations were conquered and this your limited logic was force on many to believe two thousand years later.

I assumed you were somewhat informed, not knowing I'm talking to someone who has bought the most ridiculous conspiracy garbages.
Oh, you believe biblical stories started 2000 AD??

DaddyCoool:

I assumed you were somewhat informed, not knowing I'm talking to someone who has bought the most ridiculous conspiracy garbages.
Oh, you believe biblical stories started 2000 AD??

You are the one that has bought an invented garbage. How many black African nations heard of the virgin birth before they were conquered.

If that was Jesus resurrection shroud then which one did he wear during his ascension.

MindHacker9009:


You are the one that has bought an invented garbage. How many black African nations heard of the virgin birth before they were conquered.

If that was Jesus resurrection shroud then which one did he wear during his ascension.

How can Africans hear of it? Are you okay?
Why is the shroud impossible to replicate?
What does resurrection shroud have to do with ascension? You sure u ok??

DaddyCoool:


How can Africans hear of it? Are you okay?
Why is the shroud impossible to replicate?
What has resurrection shroud have to do with ascension? You sure u ok??

You are the one not okay! Why should Africans not hear of it, that it was only after they were conquered that they heard of it.

Replicated the shroud, by who? You are the one not okay.

If he had left his resurrection shroud behind then it would have been mentioned in the New Testament that he left his resurrection shroud behind

MindHacker9009:


You are the one not okay! Why should Africans not hear of it, that it was only after they were conquered that they heard of it.

Replicated the shroud, by who? You are the one not okay.

If he had left his resurrection shroud behind then it would have been mentioned in the New Testament that he left his resurrection shroud behind

I apologize. I thought I was talking with an adult. That's why I kept asking if u were ok. Now I know I'm talking with a child, let me switch to teaching:

1) if something happens somewhere else someone from outside has to bring the news. That's why Africans did not hear about it until it was brought to them.

2) Scientists cannot replicate the shroud. The shroud is IMPOSSIBLE to replicate. No mordern technology can replicate it

3) Of course he left the shroud. That's what the disciples saw that made them believe - the shroud was wrapped as if holding a body but there was no body (see below)
Sorry it won't let me put the screenshot but here's the link:

https://findingpurpose.net/what-about-the-grave-clothes/#:~:text=When.

Esteemed Jewish scholar Simon Greenleaf, founder of Harvard Law School, meant to use his “laws of evidence” to challenge the theory of the resurrection, and became a believer…

When the disciples saw the “linen clothes lying” –- uncut, undisturbed, lying just as they had been, yet they were empty –- it convinced them that the body had been miraculously, supernaturally removed. Had some human hand stolen the body, he would have been forced to slit open the bindings in order to remove the body. Likewise, Greenleaf concluded, had Jesus revived and exited the tomb he could not have left the wrapping undisturbed.
When John saw “the linen clothes lying,” he believed. The word “lying” does not merely refer to the fact that they were “remaining on the floor of the sepulcher,” but rather, the word used, means that they were “lying precisely as the body had lain in them.” The grave clothes were in exactly the position the body had occupied.
When the disciples saw the “linen clothes lying” –- uncut, undisturbed, lying just as they had been, yet they were empty –- it convinced them that the body had been miraculously, supernaturally removed. Had some human hand stolen the body, he would have been forced to slit open the bindings in order to remove the body. Likewise, Greenleaf concluded, had Jesus revived and exited the tomb he could not have left the wrapping undisturbed.

DaddyCoool:


I apologize. I thought I was talking with an adult. That's why I kept asking if u were ok. Now I know I'm talking with a child, let me switch to teaching:

1) if something happens somewhere else someone from outside has to bring the news. That's why Africans did not hear about it until it was brought to them.

2) Scientists cannot replicate the shroud. The shroud is IMPOSSIBLE to replicate. No mordern technology can replicate it

3) Of course he left the shroud. That's what the disciples saw that made them believe - the shroud was wrapped as if holding a body but there was no body (see below)
Sorry it won't let me put the screenshot but here's the link:

https://findingpurpose.net/what-about-the-grave-clothes/#:~:text=When.

Esteemed Jewish scholar Simon Greenleaf, founder of Harvard Law School, meant to use his “laws of evidence” to challenge the theory of the resurrection, and became a believer…

When the disciples saw the “linen clothes lying” –- uncut, undisturbed, lying just as they had been, yet they were empty –- it convinced them that the body had been miraculously, supernaturally removed. Had some human hand stolen the body, he would have been forced to slit open the bindings in order to remove the body. Likewise, Greenleaf concluded, had Jesus revived and exited the tomb he could not have left the wrapping undisturbed.
When John saw “the linen clothes lying,” he believed. The word “lying” does not merely refer to the fact that they were “remaining on the floor of the sepulcher,” but rather, the word used, means that they were “lying precisely as the body had lain in them.” The grave clothes were in exactly the position the body had occupied.
When the disciples saw the “linen clothes lying” –- uncut, undisturbed, lying just as they had been, yet they were empty –- it convinced them that the body had been miraculously, supernaturally removed. Had some human hand stolen the body, he would have been forced to slit open the bindings in order to remove the body. Likewise, Greenleaf concluded, had Jesus revived and exited the tomb he could not have left the wrapping undisturbed.

You are the adult here who still has the mind of a kid from the garbage that has been feed into your mind since when you were a kid.
All four Gospels contradict each other and yet you believe the invented stories you have been taught because you still have the mind of a kid.
Even his own disciples could not recognize him after the resurrection (Luke 24:16, Luke 24:40, Matthew 28:17, John 20:14) as he was playing hide and seek like kids do.

Matthew’s Gospel:
Says that early on Sunday morning, as the new day was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to visit the tomb.
Suddenly there was a great earthquake! For an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, rolled aside the stone, and sat on it. His face shone like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. The guards shook with fear when they saw him, and they fell into a dead faint.
Then the angel spoke to the women. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He isn’t here! He is risen from the dead, just as he said would happen. Come, see where his body was lying. And now, go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and he is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there. Remember what I have told you.

Mark’s Gospel:
Says that Mary Magdalene and two other women went very early in the morning and found, to their surprise, that the stone had been moved aside. A young man told them that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. This was originally the end of Mark’s Gospel.

Luke’s Gospel:
Says that Mary Magdalene and several other women went very early in the morning and found the stone already moved aside. Two men inside the tomb, appearing like angels, told the women that Jesus was risen. The women told the disciples of this, but Peter returned to confirm their story.

John’s Gospel:
Says that Mary Magdalene went alone to the tomb while it was still dark, but turned back when she saw the stone had been moved aside, assuming the body to have been stolen. This time, Peter and another disciple returned to confirm her story. Although Mary’s assumption made sense, the two disciples immediately believed that Jesus had risen.

Maybe because YHVH was a psychopathic genocidal maniac that had to satisfy his thirst for blood one more time so he couldn't just forgive outright, he had to kill or 'sacrifice' himself to himself to appease himself for rules and circumstances orchestrated by himself. Funny thing is Jesus outrightly forgave people before his death but still had to die for everyone to be forgiven. Hmm! What a clusterfuck of absolute horse shit just like the torah as well.

DaddyCoool:
You are reasoning it with human logic which is extremely limited.
If it were by human logic no one would come up with such. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!!

Using our extremely limited reasoning you can also ask who created the creator and why did he suddenly start creating.

It is now you know you understand why David said "what is man that you are mindfull of him"

Lucifyre:
Maybe because YHVH was a psychopathic genocidal maniac that had to satisfy his thirst for blood one more time so he couldn't just forgive outright, he had to kill or 'sacrifice' himself to himself to appease himself for rules and circumstances orchestrated by himself. Funny thing is Jesus outrightly forgave people before his death but still had to die for everyone to be forgiven. Hmm! What a clusterfuck of absolute horse shit just like the torah as well.

I am sure even you can see that you speak like a mad Satan.

Lucifyre:
Funny thing is Jesus outrightly forgave people before his death but still had to die for everyone to be forgiven. Hmm!

That's because Jesus christ is a Roman empire invention to control the minds of people in the nations they have conquered.

StillDtruth:


I am sure even you can see that you speak like a mad Satan.

Go suck on your mother's saggy tit, old fool.

MindHacker9009:


That's because Jesus christ is a Roman empire invention to control the minds of people in the nations they have conquered.

This is a false notion that gets repeated often and its tiring. Its basically consensus that there was a historical Jesus. Can you adeaquately prove your claim from reputable sources? Obviously no, i'ld be surprised if you managed that. And when u say God of the torah, what torah?

MindHacker9009:


You are the adult here who still has the mind of a kid from the garbage that has been feed into your mind since when you were a kid.
All four Gospels contradict each other and yet you believe the invented stories you have been taught because you still have the mind of a kid.
Even his own disciples could not recognize him after the resurrection (Luke 24:16, Luke 24:40, Matthew 28:17, John 20:14) as he was playing hide and seek like kids do.

Matthew’s Gospel:
Says that early on Sunday morning, as the new day was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to visit the tomb.
Suddenly there was a great earthquake! For an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, rolled aside the stone, and sat on it. His face shone like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. The guards shook with fear when they saw him, and they fell into a dead faint.
Then the angel spoke to the women. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He isn’t here! He is risen from the dead, just as he said would happen. Come, see where his body was lying. And now, go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and he is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there. Remember what I have told you.

Mark’s Gospel:
Says that Mary Magdalene and two other women went very early in the morning and found, to their surprise, that the stone had been moved aside. A young man told them that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. This was originally the end of Mark’s Gospel.

Luke’s Gospel:
Says that Mary Magdalene and several other women went very early in the morning and found the stone already moved aside. Two men inside the tomb, appearing like angels, told the women that Jesus was risen. The women told the disciples of this, but Peter returned to confirm their story.

John’s Gospel:
Says that Mary Magdalene went alone to the tomb while it was still dark, but turned back when she saw the stone had been moved aside, assuming the body to have been stolen. This time, Peter and another disciple returned to confirm her story. Although Mary’s assumption made sense, the two disciples immediately believed that Jesus had risen.

EXACTLY, child. The inconsistencies in the Bible are exactly what prove it's authenticity. If it were concocted by some guy (or by Rome as some idiotically claim) it would be perfect. Everything would agree perfectly. But because it was inspired by God but indeed written down by fallible humans, it has inconsistencies.
Any more questions little one?

DaddyCoool:


EXACTLY, child. The inconsistencies in the Bible are exactly what prove it's authenticity. If it were concocted by some guy (or by Rome as some idiotically claim) it would be perfect. Everything would agree perfectly. But because it was inspired by God but indeed written down by fallible humans, it has inconsistencies.
Any more questions little one?

wtf😅

Thought God wasn't an author of confusion. He must love the chaos with you guys arguing over whose interpretation is right across 40,000+ denominations and more than 2 religions. Perfect.

Lucifyre:


wtf😅

Thought God wasn't an author of confusion. He must love the chaos with you guys arguing over whose interpretation is rught across 40,000+ denominations and more than 2 religions. Perfect.

Child, there are no inconsistencies in the Bible about the really important things. You won't see anywhere where it says Moses received 8 Commandments or that Elizabeth was the mother of Christ, or that the Lord said kill your neighbor, etc

MindHacker9009:


That's because Jesus christ is a Roman empire invention to control the minds of people in the nations they have conquered.

Child, the Roman emperor was god. Why would he invent someone that said he was no god, infact that he was a sinful nobody that needed forgiveness like the lowliest servant? Infact that non of Rome's long-revered gods were gods? Someone who said that the emperor specifically was going to hell?! Why would Rome invent all those biblical stories that put Rome in such bad light??
You see it now, child?

Lucifyre:

This is a false notion that gets repeated often and its tiring. Its basically consensus that there was a historical Jesus. Can you adeaquately prove your claim from reputable sources? Obviously no, i'ld be surprised if you managed that. And when u say God of the torah, what torah?

Here are proofs:
The Book of Acts claims Three Thousand souls were added to the Church in just one day, and that daily the Church grew, this was around 33 CE after the ascension of Jesus. Flavius Josephus the only Jewish historian in the first century that Christians do refer to for reference was born in the year 37 CE just three years after the fake ascension of Jesus christ and Josephus stated that there were only three sects in existence when he was 16, and he did not hear of Christianity.
Flavius Josephus: "And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: - The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; so I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all."

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing in the first century, mentions several individuals named Jesus (or Yeshua in Hebrew). It was a common name at the time, so multiple figures with the name appear in his works. Here are the individuals named Jesus that Josephus mentioned, but with Jesus of Nazareth he did not say 'son of' which historians have claimed for a Jewish writer not to mention the 'son of' shows it is a sign that was a made up story and it's either he left the clue himself or a forger added it later:

1. Jesus, son of Ananias
Mentioned in: The Jewish War (Book 6, Chapter 5, Sections 3)
Role: A prophetic figure
Details: Around AD 62, Jesus, son of Ananias, was a commoner who began to prophesy doom for Jerusalem. He wandered through the streets during the Feast of Tabernacles, repeatedly shouting warnings of the city's destruction. Despite being arrested, beaten, and questioned by Roman authorities, he continued his proclamations. He was eventually killed during the siege of Jerusalem by a stone launched from a Roman catapult.

2. Jesus, son of Gamaliel
Mentioned in: The Jewish War (Book 4, Chapter 3, Sections 9)
Role: High Priest
Details: Jesus, son of Gamaliel, served as a High Priest in Jerusalem shortly before the First Jewish-Roman War. He was involved in the political and religious leadership of the city during this tumultuous period but was removed from office after a short tenure.

3. Jesus, son of Sapphias
Mentioned in: The Jewish War (Book 2, Chapter 20, Sections 4)
Role: Leader of rebels in Tiberias
Details: Jesus, son of Sapphias, was a leader of a rebellious faction in Tiberias during the Jewish revolt against Rome. He played a key role in the violence that erupted in Galilee, seizing the city's royal palace and massacring a group of Roman sympathizers.

4. Jesus, brother of James (Jesus of Nazareth)
Mentioned in: Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1)
Role: Religious leader
Details: Josephus refers to Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of Christianity, indirectly through a reference to his brother James. In this passage, Josephus discusses the illegal execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" (Χριστός). While this is a brief mention, it is significant because it confirms that Josephus was aware of Jesus and his movement.

5. Jesus, son of Damnaeus
Mentioned in: Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1)
Role: High Priest
Details: After the execution of James, the brother of Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth), Jesus, son of Damnaeus, was appointed as High Priest by the Roman authorities. This appointment came as a political maneuver during a period of unrest in Jerusalem.

6. Jesus, son of Thebuthus
Mentioned in: The Jewish War (Book 6, Chapter 8, Section 3)
Role: Temple official
Details: Jesus, son of Thebuthus, was involved in the events leading to the Roman siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. He is mentioned as one of the officials who surrendered sacred Temple items to the Romans in an attempt to gain favor and spare his own life.

DaddyCoool:

Child, the Roman emperor was god. Why would he invent someone that said he was no god, infact that he was a sinful nobody that needed forgiveness like the lowliest servant? Infact that non of Rome's long-revered gods were gods? Someone who said that the emperor specifically was going to hell?! Why would Rome invent all those biblical stories that put Rome in such bad light??
You see it now, child?

Listen kid, that shows it's a made up story as the Jews were expecting a Messiah like Moses, Joshua, King David or Samson to come and defeat the Romans occupying their land and there were extremists among the Jewish Zealots turned to terrorism and assassination like is going on in the Middle East today and they became known as Sicarii (Greek sikarioi, “dagger men”).
They frequented public places with hidden daggers to strike down persons friendly to the Roman empire occupying Israel 2000 years ago] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zealot . 
So the Roman empire had to invent a peaceful turn the other cheek messiah they named Jesus christ as a psychological warfare to reprogram the minds of the Jewish Zealots that were wagging a gorilla against the Romans in the first century and into the second century.  

So, kid, why don't you grab your feeding bottle with baby food, sit down quietly, and let the real adults here like myself and Sonmvayina, teach you some real history of the invention of your Jesus christ.

MindHacker9009:


Listen kid, that shows it's a made up story as the Jews were expecting a Messiah like Moses, Joshua, King David or Samson to come and defeat the Romans occupying their land and there were extremists among the Jewish Zealots turned to terrorism and assassination like is going on in the Middle East today and they became known as Sicarii (Greek sikarioi, “dagger men”).
They frequented public places with hidden daggers to strike down persons friendly to the Roman empire occupying Israel 2000 years ago] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zealot . 
So the Roman empire had to invent a peaceful turn the other cheek messiah they named Jesus christ as a psychological warfare to reprogram the minds of the Jewish Zealots that were wagging a gorilla against the Romans for in the first century and into the second century.  

So, kid, why don't you grab your feeding bottle with baby food, sit down quietly, and let the real adults here like myself and Sonmvayina, teach you some real history of the invention of your Jesus christ.  

Wow! Just wow!! There are all sorts of convoluted conspiracy madness, but this one takes the cake!
Where do I even start. This would be the first and only time this happened in history. Which genius in Rome produced all those powerful words and what other similar works did he produce? Soo somebody in Rome came up with a messiah who taught that their emperor and all their gods were trash and their emperor was headed straight to hell. Why didn't they lynch such a person? And they invented him for the Jews! Do you know the jews never believed in Jesus and that Judea was sacked by Rome in 70 AD? Why didn't Rome end Christianity after that? Why did they then let Christianity consume Rome and they abandoned their own gods?!

Once again, have you ever read the Bible, child?
Did Rome also create all those verses in OT pointing to the comming of Christ? Did they also invent the apostles? How many? And the prophets and Mary, Joseph, genealogy of Christ? What great inventors those Romans were!

DaddyCoool:


Wow! Just wow!! There are all sorts of convoluted conspiracy madness, but this one takes the cake!
Where do I even start. This would be the first and only time this happened in history...

I wanted to tell you yesterday that he is Mad, but i felt you would not listen to me. Now you see what everyone has seen and experienced which is why you see no one really talking to him. His Madness is on steriods!

HE IS COMING BACK TO BUILD OUR NEW JERUSALEM.
THE ROBOTS TOO NEED ATTENTION AND CONTROL.

DaddyCoool:

Wow! Just wow!! There are all sorts of convoluted conspiracy madness, but this one takes the cake!
Where do I even start. This would be the first and only time this happened in history. Which genius in Rome produced all those powerful words and what other similar works did he produce? Soo somebody in Rome came up with a messiah who taught that their emperor and all their gods were trash and their emperor was headed straight to hell. Why didn't they lynch such a person? And they invented him for the Jews! Do you know the jews never believed in Jesus and that Judea was sacked by Rome in 70 AD? Why didn't Rome end Christianity after that? Why did they then let Christianity consume Rome and they abandoned their own gods?!

Once again, have you ever read the Bible, child?
Did Rome also create all those verses in OT pointing to the comming of Christ? Did they also invent the apostles? How many? And the prophets and Mary, Joseph, genealogy of Christ? What great inventors those Romans were!

You have no where to start other than from your convoluted and deluded mind that is making you to display your madness. You are a scammer you know the story of Jesus christ is a made up story but you are happy to use it to scam others who are still naive and are believing such nonsense.

These are the images of the kind of stuff under the Christian temples in Rome which shows that they still had their gods in those temples and that Christianity was only used to unite all the different pagan religions in the Roman empire in order to unit the empire which was about to crumble at that time.
Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome after he claimed he saw a vision of the cross in the sky bearing the inscription "Hoc signo victor eris" ('by this sign, you will conquer') just before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge which he worn and became the emperor of Rome. He's believe was that it was Jesus christ that showed him the vision that made him to win the war.
But in 70 AD your invented Jesus christ did not help his own people in Jerusalem to defeat the pagan Roman empire but decided to help a Roman pagan emperor to win his war in Rome.

Christ was not mentioned in the OT, Joseph was not the biological father of your invented Jesus christ. And even the genealogy was invented as the two genealogies contradict each other.
The word in Hebrew in the OT is Almah meaning a young lady, also the baby would come from a man and a woman, but to invent your christ it was changed to a virgin and a half man half god from the Roman empire's pagan beliefs.
There are similarities between the Roman pagan worship of Sol Invictus (Unconquered Son) and Christianity, such as the Sunday mass and the divine celebrations around Christmas.
.

I can certainly help you with this! Using your robot analogy.

MindHacker9009:
Why would a robot maker enter and be born by a robot and become a robot himself to save robots from their sins?

You (God) made intelligent robots (humans), gave them free will to learn, act and react. Someone (devil) corrupted their software (nature). They started behaving differently. Now the robots can produce new robots on their own (reproduction) - but all have their software corrupted (sinful nature). You gave them rules to follow (law) but they always failed.
You handpicked one relatively well behaved robot (Mary) at the production line, and through it, you installed your own personality software into a brand new robot (Jesus) in the production line - this uncorrupted robot is you because its software is your very own consciousness (God).
Through this special robot, other corrupted ones were able to connect to its private network and gradually download your consciousness in it into themselves (becoming sons of God), gradually cleansing them. Though they killed it (crucifixion), its software now runs in a cloud server that can network every robot on earth via a VPN software (Holy Spirit), feeding them your consciousness.

MindHacker9009:


You have no where to start other than from your convoluted and deluded mind that is making you to display your madness. You are a scammer you know the story of Jesus christ is a made up story but you are happy to use it to scam others who are still naive and are believing such nonsense.

These are the images of the kind of stuff under the Christian temples in Rome which shows that they still had their gods in those temples and that Christianity was only used to unite all the different pagan religions in the Roman empire in order to unit the empire which was about to crumble at that time.
Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome after he claimed he saw a vision of the cross in the sky bearing the inscription "Hoc signo victor eris" ('by this sign, you will conquer') just before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge which he worn and became the emperor of Rome. He's believe was that it was Jesus christ that showed him the vision that made him to win the war.
But in 70 AD your invented Jesus christ did not help his own people in Jerusalem to defeat the pagan Roman empire but decided to help a Roman pagan emperor to win his war in Rome.

Christ was not mentioned in the OT, Joseph was not the biological father of your invented Jesus christ. And even the genealogy was invented as the two genealogies contradict each other.
The word in Hebrew in the OT is Almah meaning a young lady, also the baby would come from a man and a woman, but to invent your christ it was changed to a virgin and a half man half god from the Roman empire's pagan beliefs.
There are similarities between the Roman pagan worship of Sol Invictus (Unconquered Son) and Christianity, such as the Sunday mass and the divine celebrations around Christmas.

Kuku.. kuku.. kuku...
I'd stop calling you child because that's an insult to children. I'd simply call you Kuku!😆

Do you know that every important person around Constantine was already a Christian before that sign - including his own mother and top generals, that he ultimately really had no choice? But the important question (which you dodged because you know you're talking nonsense) is, why would Rome let a Christ they invented transcend their own gods? They no longer believed the sun was god, nor Zeus, nor the emperor. Not only that, the emperor was a lowly sinner headed to hell.
Also, this sinless Christ they invented was not o be crucified by their enemies but by they themselves! Not only that, all Christ-related stories put their country and leaders in bad light - not a single positive image of Rome in a story they invented! Those Romans must have really suddenly gone bananas😅!

At least we now know you're NOT saying the OT was also invented, nether were the apostles and their works. Only Christ! If you were not kukuish you'd have seen that the stories are intertwined, that they can't be separated. You should have claimed ALL the Bible was made up by Rome. That way there'd be no pretense about not lying.
See below, how many times various scholars (including atheists and Jews) said Christ's comming was prophesied in the OT.

WeirdAlien:
I can certainly help you with this! Using your robot analogy.



You (God) made intelligent robots (humans), gave them free will to learn, act and react. Someone (devil) corrupted their software (nature). They started behaving differently. Now the robots can produce new robots on their own (reproduction) - but all have their software corrupted (sinful nature). You gave them rules to follow (law) but they always failed.
You handpicked one relatively well behaved robot (Mary) at the production line, and through it, you installed your own personality software into a brand new robot (Jesus) in the production line - this uncorrupted robot is you because its software is your very own consciousness (God).
Through this special robot, other corrupted ones were able to connect to its private network and gradually download your consciousness in it into themselves (becoming sons of God), gradually cleansing them. Though they killed it (crucifixion), its software now runs in a cloud server that can network every robot on earth via a VPN software (Holy Spirit), feeding them your consciousness.

Very articulate analogy.

DaddyCoool:


Kuku.. kuku.. kuku...
I'd stop calling you child because that's an insult to children. I'd simply call you Kuku!😆

Do you know that every important person around Constantine was already a Christian before that sign - including his own mother and top generals, that he ultimately really had no choice? But the important question (which you dodged because you know you're talking nonsense) is, why would Rome let a Christ they invented transcend their own gods? They no longer believed the sun was god, nor Zeus, nor the emperor. Not only that, the emperor was a lowly sinner headed to hell.
Also, this sinless Christ they invented was not o be crucified by their enemies but by they themselves! Not only that, all Christ-related stories put their country and leaders in bad light - not a single positive image of Rome in a story they invented! Those Romans must have really suddenly gone bananas😅!

At least we now know you're NOT saying the OT was also invented, nether were the apostles and their works. Only Christ! If you were not kukuish you'd have seen that the stories are intertwined, that they can't be separated. You should have claimed ALL the Bible was made up by Rome. That way there'd be no pretense about not lying.
See below, how many times various scholars (including atheists and Jews) said Christ's comming was prophesied in the OT.

Your mind is so deluded that's why you have resulted into calling yourself first a child now kuku.

Constantine 1, also known as Constantine the Great, the first Roman emperor to become a Christian Constantine's conversion to Christianity is traditionally associated with the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. Before this crucial battle, Constantine reportedly had a vision or dream in which he saw a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho or the cross) and heard the words, "In this sign, conquer" ("In hoc signo vinces" in Latin). Inspired by this vision, Constantine had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields and won the battle. This experience is considered a pivotal moment in his conversion.
Researchers today have shown proof that he only used his vision of christ to get Christians into his army to help him fight and win the battle. There are similarities between the Roman pagan worship of Sol Invictus (Unconquered Son) and Christianity, such as the Sunday mass and the divine celebrations around Christmas. So it was the religion of  Sol Invictus that got converted to Christianity by linking it to the expected Messiah in Judaism.   
 St. Helena Constantine's mum, who converted earlier, oversaw the construction of churches on Holy Land sites. She would later be credited with discovering the cross upon which Jesus Christ is believed to have been crucified and this was three hundred years later after the crucifixion of your invented Jesus christ.

The OT we have today is not the original Torah, the first Original Torah from Abraham was taken away or destroyed when the first Temple was destroyed by the Bybelonians. The second Torah written after the return from Babylon was taken away to Rome and hidden away by the Roman empire before the destruction of the second Temple in seventy AD. It was from this second Torah that they wrote the OT to suit their own agender. 

Because of the influence of printing and a demand for Scriptures in the vernacular, William Tyndale began working on a New Testament translation directly from the Greek in 1523. After church authorities in England prevented him from translating the Bible there, he went to Germany in 1524, receiving financial support from wealthy London merchants. His New Testament translation was completed in July 1525 and printed at Cologne. Again under pressure, this time from the city authorities, Tyndale fled to Worms, where two more editions were published in 1525. The first copies were smuggled into England in 1526, where they were at once proscribed.

Tyndale continued to work on the Old Testament translation but was captured in Antwerp before it was completed. Condemned for heresy, he was executed by strangulation and then burned at the stake at Vilvoorde in 1536.
If your mind is not deluded you would ask why he was eliminated. This reason is because if people have a translation they can read by themselves they would know the stories do not add up.

Several scholars have questioned or disputed the historicity of Jesus Christ, particularly focusing on whether or not Jesus was a historical figure or how much of the Gospel accounts can be seen as historically reliable. While these scholars come from different academic backgrounds and often have nuanced views, here are some notable ones who have either questioned the historicity of Jesus or at least aspects of the traditional narratives surrounding him:

1. Bruno Bauer (1809–1882)
A 19th-century German philosopher and theologian, Bauer is one of the earliest scholars to systematically deny the historicity of Jesus. He argued that the New Testament accounts of Jesus were mythological and that Christianity emerged from a synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic ideas.

2. Arthur Drews (1865–1935)
A German philosopher and writer, Drews was a prominent proponent of the Christ Myth Theory. His book The Christ Myth (1909) argued that Jesus was a mythological figure and that the stories in the Gospels were later fabrications.

3. G.A. Wells (1926–2017)
A British scholar, Wells was one of the leading proponents of the Christ Myth Theory in the 20th century. In works like Did Jesus Exist? (1975), he argued that there is little evidence to support the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, claiming that the New Testament accounts are largely mythical.

4. Robert M. Price (b. 1954)
An American theologian and New Testament scholar, Price is known for questioning the historicity of Jesus. In books such as The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011), Price argues that Jesus likely did not exist as a historical figure and that the Gospel stories are influenced by mythological and literary motifs from the surrounding culture.

5. Earl Doherty (b. 1941)
A Canadian author and proponent of the mythicist position, Doherty argues in his book The Jesus Puzzle (1999) that the early Christian writings, including Paul’s letters, describe a spiritual, not a historical, Jesus. He suggests that the historical Jesus was a later invention.

6. Richard Carrier (b. 1969)
A modern American historian and philosopher, Carrier is one of the most prominent contemporary proponents of the Christ Myth Theory. In his book On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), Carrier uses Bayesian probability to argue that Jesus was likely a mythological figure.

7. Thomas L. Thompson (b. 1939)
A biblical scholar associated with the Copenhagen School of biblical criticism, Thompson has focused primarily on the Old Testament but has also raised questions about the historicity of Jesus. In his book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (2005), he argues that much of the narrative surrounding Jesus (and David) is mythological.

8. John M. Allegro (1923–1988)
A British archaeologist and Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, Allegro gained controversy for his unconventional views. In his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), Allegro suggested that early Christian mythology was tied to fertility cults and hallucinogenic mushrooms. While not directly arguing for the non-historicity of Jesus, his work sparked significant controversy and skepticism about traditional narratives.

9. Alvar Ellegård (1919–2008)
A Swedish scholar, Ellegård proposed that Paul’s depiction of Jesus refers not to a historical figure but to a spiritual entity. In Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ (1999), he controversially suggested that Jesus might have been a figure from a century earlier than traditionally believed.

10. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
Authors of The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (1999), Freke and Gandy argue that the story of Jesus was adapted from pre-existing pagan mythologies, particularly the dying-and-rising gods of the ancient world.

What's the next garbage in you deluded mind kuku?

FxMasterz:


Very articulate analogy.

Articulate but flawed. That's what happens when you try to apply extremely limited human logic to things of God. Where did the someone (devil) come from? Who created him and why is he indestructible? Why weren't the robots made with the correction consciousness already installed? Or, once it was discovered they had gone bad, why not destroy the original two that started everything instead of going to all that trouble?Then the ultimate question, why suddenly start building robots at all with all the attendant headahes, when you were doing just fine without them?! WeirdAlien

MindHacker9009:


Your mind is so deluded that's why you have resulted into calling yourself first a child now kuku.

Constantine 1, also known as Constantine the Great, the first Roman emperor to become a Christian Constantine's conversion to Christianity is traditionally associated with the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. Before this crucial battle, Constantine reportedly had a vision or dream in which he saw a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho or the cross) and heard the words, "In this sign, conquer" ("In hoc signo vinces" in Latin). Inspired by this vision, Constantine had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields and won the battle. This experience is considered a pivotal moment in his conversion.
Researchers today have shown proof that he only used his vision of christ to get Christians into his army to help him fight and win the battle. There are similarities between the Roman pagan worship of Sol Invictus (Unconquered Son) and Christianity, such as the Sunday mass and the divine celebrations around Christmas. So it was the religion of  Sol Invictus that got converted to Christianity by linking it to the expected Messiah in Judaism.   
 St. Helena Constantine's mum, who converted earlier, oversaw the construction of churches on Holy Land sites. She would later be credited with discovering the cross upon which Jesus Christ is believed to have been crucified and this was three hundred years later after the crucifixion for your invented Jesus christ.
The OT we have today is not the original Torah, the first Original Torah from Abraham was taken away or destroyed when the first Temple was destroyed by the Bybelonians. The second Torah written after the return from Babylon was taken away to Rome and hidden away by the Roman empire before the destruction of the second Temple in seventy AD. It was from this second Torah that they wrote the OT to suit their own agender. 
Because of the influence of printing and a demand for Scriptures in the vernacular, William Tyndale began working on a New Testament translation directly from the Greek in 1523. After church authorities in England prevented him from translating the Bible there, he went to Germany in 1524, receiving financial support from wealthy London merchants. His New Testament translation was completed in July 1525 and printed at Cologne. Again under pressure, this time from the city authorities, Tyndale fled to Worms, where two more editions were published in 1525. The first copies were smuggled into England in 1526, where they were at once proscribed.

Tyndale continued to work on the Old Testament translation but was captured in Antwerp before it was completed. Condemned for heresy, he was executed by strangulation and then burned at the stake at Vilvoorde in 1536.
If your mind is not deluded you would ask why he was eliminated. This reason is because if people have a translation they can read by themselves they would know the stories do not add up.

Several scholars have questioned or disputed the historicity of Jesus Christ, particularly focusing on whether or not Jesus was a historical figure or how much of the Gospel accounts can be seen as historically reliable. While these scholars come from different academic backgrounds and often have nuanced views, here are some notable ones who have either questioned the historicity of Jesus or at least aspects of the traditional narratives surrounding him:

1. Bruno Bauer (1809–1882)
A 19th-century German philosopher and theologian, Bauer is one of the earliest scholars to systematically deny the historicity of Jesus. He argued that the New Testament accounts of Jesus were mythological and that Christianity emerged from a synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic ideas.

2. Arthur Drews (1865–1935)
A German philosopher and writer, Drews was a prominent proponent of the Christ Myth Theory. His book The Christ Myth (1909) argued that Jesus was a mythological figure and that the stories in the Gospels were later fabrications.

3. G.A. Wells (1926–2017)
A British scholar, Wells was one of the leading proponents of the Christ Myth Theory in the 20th century. In works like Did Jesus Exist? (1975), he argued that there is little evidence to support the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, claiming that the New Testament accounts are largely mythical.

4. Robert M. Price (b. 1954)
An American theologian and New Testament scholar, Price is known for questioning the historicity of Jesus. In books such as The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011), Price argues that Jesus likely did not exist as a historical figure and that the Gospel stories are influenced by mythological and literary motifs from the surrounding culture.

5. Earl Doherty (b. 1941)
A Canadian author and proponent of the mythicist position, Doherty argues in his book The Jesus Puzzle (1999) that the early Christian writings, including Paul’s letters, describe a spiritual, not a historical, Jesus. He suggests that the historical Jesus was a later invention.

6. Richard Carrier (b. 1969)
A modern American historian and philosopher, Carrier is one of the most prominent contemporary proponents of the Christ Myth Theory. In his book On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), Carrier uses Bayesian probability to argue that Jesus was likely a mythological figure.

7. Thomas L. Thompson (b. 1939)
A biblical scholar associated with the Copenhagen School of biblical criticism, Thompson has focused primarily on the Old Testament but has also raised questions about the historicity of Jesus. In his book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (2005), he argues that much of the narrative surrounding Jesus (and David) is mythological.

8. John M. Allegro (1923–1988)
A British archaeologist and Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, Allegro gained controversy for his unconventional views. In his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970), Allegro suggested that early Christian mythology was tied to fertility cults and hallucinogenic mushrooms. While not directly arguing for the non-historicity of Jesus, his work sparked significant controversy and skepticism about traditional narratives.

9. Alvar Ellegård (1919–2008)
A Swedish scholar, Ellegård proposed that Paul’s depiction of Jesus refers not to a historical figure but to a spiritual entity. In Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ (1999), he controversially suggested that Jesus might have been a figure from a century earlier than traditionally believed.

10. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
Authors of The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (1999), Freke and Gandy argue that the story of Jesus was adapted from pre-existing pagan mythologies, particularly the dying-and-rising gods of the ancient world.

What's the next garbage in you deluded mind kuku?

See this one, trying to obscure fundamental nonsense with copious, voluminous, ramblings. Ain't gonna work. Here it is again:

Do you know that every important person around Constantine was already a Christian before that sign - including his own mother and top generals, that he ultimately really had no choice?
But the important question (which you dodged because you know you're talking nonsense) is, why would Rome let a Christ they invented transcend their own gods? They no longer believed the sun was god, nor Zeus, nor the emperor. Not only that, the emperor was now a lowly sinner headed to hell.
Also, this sinless Christ they invented was not crucified by their enemies but by they themselves! Not only that, all Christ-related stories put their country and leaders in bad light - not a single positive image of Rome in a story they invented! Those Romans must have really suddenly gone bananas😅!

As Christianity grew, of course concessions were made in non-fundamebtal things to accommodate the new converts. One of them was Sunday worship - since Christ said we should worship God everyday.

DaddyCoool:


See this one, trying to obscure fundamental nonsense with copious, voluminous, ramblings. Ain't gonna work. Here it is again:

Do you know that every important person around Constantine was already a Christian before that sign - including his own mother and top generals, that he ultimately really had no choice?
But the important question (which you dodged because you know you're talking nonsense) is, why would Rome let a Christ they invented transcend their own gods? They no longer believed the sun was god, nor Zeus, nor the emperor. Not only that, the emperor was a lowly sinner headed to hell.
Also, this sinless Christ they invented was not crucified by their enemies but by they themselves! Not only that, all Christ-related stories put their country and leaders in bad light - not a single positive image of Rome in a story they invented! Those Romans must have really suddenly gone bananas😅!

As Christianity grew, of course concessions were made in non-fundamebtal things to accommodate the new converts. One of them was Sunday worship - since Christ said we should worship God everyday.

Constantine and his generals were worshipers of the cult of Sol Invictus which had a strong influence on Roman religious life in the 3rd and early 4th centuries. December 25, the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (the "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun", was a significant celebration for the followers of this cult, coinciding with the winter solstice and the rebirth of the sun. There are similarities between the Roman pagan worship of Sol Invictus (Unconquered Son) and Christianity, such as the Sunday mass and the divine celebrations around Christmas.

This was how Constantine's mum discovered that cross of Jesus christ about three hundred years later. According to Christian tradition, the site where Jesus was crucified, Golgotha, had been buried and lost under a pagan temple built by the Romans. This temple was erected under Emperor Hadrian to obscure the memory of Jesus' crucifixion.
Helena ordered the demolition of this pagan temple and began excavations at the site.
During the excavation, three crosses were found. According to the story, these were the crosses used for the crucifixion of Jesus and the two thieves who were crucified alongside him.
After the discovery, the True Cross became an object of great veneration. Portions of the cross were sent to various churches around the empire, while a significant portion was kept in Jerusalem. The event also led to the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by Constantine at the site of the discovery.
This story of the discovery of the True Cross is central to Christian tradition, some historians view the narrative with skepticism, suggesting it may have been influenced by religious enthusiasm or later embellishment. The story has had a significant impact on Christian practice and the spread of Christian relics throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

If you are not a scammer you'll accept these stories of Jesus christ was made up to please those that are not Jews but wanted a way to become part of the Jewish religion so a virgin birth of  man/god was the best invention that those that are naive would believe.