It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Conspiracy To Discredit Christ as a Myth and to change Christianity into "do what thou wilt"

page: 11
45
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


Well not really. For one thing it is general excepted by reasonable scholars that no one but an eye witness could give an account of the thing written. At that point then it doesn't matter who wrote it as one is still faced with the testimony.


Hermeneutics /hɜrməˈnjuːtɪks/ is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.[1][2] The terms "hermeneutics" and "exegesis" are sometimes used interchangeably. Hermeneutics is a wider discipline that includes written, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Exegesis focuses primarily upon texts. Hermeneutic, as a singular noun, refers to a single particular method or strand of interpretation (see, in contrast, double hermeneutic). The understanding of any written text requires hermeneutics.[3]


Hermeneutics is a discipline applied to scripture that's not even a christian philosophy of interpretation.

Hermenutics




posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Hermeneutics these days is just a word people use to confuse people and try to prove something they can't...

Regardless the gospels we have in their earliest forms we have today are copies of copies of copies... None of them are originals documents.. and none of them have any type of identification of who they were written by as I've said...

I do believe them to be eyewitness accounts of his life, but the so called "miracles" could have very well been added to them to give them weight to their divine nature...

It is quite routine for such things to happen when it comes to biblical documents of that time...




posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Logarock

Hermeneutics these days is just a word people use to confuse people and try to prove something they can't...

Regardless the gospels we have in their earliest forms we have today are copies of copies of copies... None of them are originals documents..






Codex Sinaiticus consists mostly of the text of the Septuagint, the Greek-language Bible. Some 800 of the original 1,400 handwritten vellum pages remain. Though about half of the Hebrew Bible is missing, a complete 4th-century New Testament is preserved, along with the Letter of Barnabas (c. mid-2nd century) and most of the Shepherd of Hermas, a 2nd-century Christian writer. There were probably four scribes who contributed to the original text. Later corrections representing attempts to alter the text to a different standard probably were made about the 6th or 7th century at Caesarea.


Here was a complete Greek new testament written in the 4th century discovered in the 1850s. When compared to more recent manuscripts they proved that the texted had not been altered. They were able to compare the oldest example, which was not available obviously at the time several well know bibles were written like the King James, with more resent copies that were available during the translation into more modern bibles to prove the efficacy of years of manuscript translation and preservation.

Codex Sinaiticus
edit on 2-5-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

So you just showed exactly what I was just saying...

4th century... After the Arian controversy when the so called "proof texts" of the trinity were inserted...

The earliest "fragment" we have from any of the gospels is a small section of the gospel of John, which is about the size of a credit card... and even that was from the second century...

We have NOTHING from the original texts... not a shred...

Everything from the gospels are copies of copies of copies, and almost all of the fragments we do have say different things...




posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

Are those the same people who witnessed how God created world in 6 days and rested on 7 day.


You have no idea about the word allegoric, don't you?

Honestly, please tell me. Have you even once read the Old and New Testament? From the beginning till the very end?
If you had, you would have understood that the Old Testament, and more specifically Genesis, is allegoric.

But anyway, you are not aware that Luke was one of the Seventy Apostles, which all lived and follow Jesus or His 12 Apostles, how would you know that the Genesis is allegoric?

And you asked me before if i knew when Luke lived? You know nothing about Christianity, yet you continue to "express" your unjustified, categorical, disrespectful opinion. For me, opinions like these are not accepted in a serious conversation.

Like you had no clue that i talk with rhytorical questions exactly as Socrates did in his "Apology" or "Απολογία Σωκράτους", you have no clue about Christianity.

Aren't you ashamed to speak while you know absolutely nothing about what you claim to know?

For me, this debate with you is over.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Logarock

So you just showed exactly what I was just saying...

4th century... After the Arian controversy when the so called "proof texts" of the trinity were inserted...





What "proof texts" would those be? Inserted! take about the size of a credit card. Show me what you are talking about with this so I can understand where you are coming from. The whole of the trinity itself, the church idea is mostly based off conjoining parts of the book that speak of different persons of the Godhead, mostly. The truth is you cant prove something was inserted into the original without the original. So how can you dismantle the trinity idea without it. By the way I really don't get all worked up about it. Not the sort here that cares to jump on someone over the trinity one way or another.

My thought is if you can show .00009 change in the documents over almost 500 years it looks good going back words.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JesusChristwins

originally posted by: SuperFrog

Are those the same people who witnessed how God created world in 6 days and rested on 7 day.


You have no idea about the word allegoric, don't you?

Honestly, please tell me. Have you even once read the Old and New Testament? From the beginning till the very end?
If you had, you would have understood that the Old Testament, and more specifically Genesis, is allegoric.

.


The OT is allegorical? Whatever a persons position is on the truth of it, it wasn't written as allegory but written as fact. Wasn't intended to be seen as allegorical.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Theres several actually.... the most famous of which is called the Johannine comma... 1 john; 5-7

Now we, as in you and I can not prove these things of course but any competent scholar knows this section of the book to be inserted at a later date then when it was written. They know this because the writing style is different in that specific section of the texts, and the fact that it is not mentioned in ANY of the earliest texts... in some translations they even have brackets around this part of the text because its well known to be a later addition

The originals are not needed when the earliest texts we have do not contain this passage...

As far as the trinity goes, its quite easy to dismantle as you put it because as I've been saying for years, the trinity is absent from the bible... the only way to prove said trinity is as you said... taking a piece from here and a piece from there and adding it together... No trinity was ever mentioned before Tertullian... No Trinity is taught by any of the apostles or Jesus himself...

In fact, IF one looks back into the actual documents of the Arian controversy... anyone can clearly see Arius was completely correct in his argument against the church on this subject... His arguments align completely with what Jesus taught...

I wrote a thread recently on Nicaea and the Arian controversy...

They called him a heretic but he was correct... and he was likely silenced because he would not adhere to the church and what they wanted to teach... which was not biblical, and to this day is NOT biblical...

Reconciling Arius...


edit on 2-5-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: BombDefined
I was trying to see how Christians justified military service (i.e. ANZAC day) with the commandment 'Thou Shalt not Kill'.

I'm a Christian. I was in the US Army for five years. There is no contradiction. No where did Jesus say that you can't protect yourself or engage in self defense. If there had been a war and we had been invaded, I would have had no problem blasting the hell out of the invaders and then going and praying my rosary at the end of the day.


What part of "thou shalt not kill" don't you understand? Up until the time of Constantine killing was not forgiven for any reason.

When you joined the military you put yourself into the position to kill people. If you were to invade another nation like we have done a lot of lately do you really think you would be forgiven if you were to kill someone? After all you are the aggressor and not really defending yourself. It's easy to say had we been invaded but when was the last time America was invaded?



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Tischendorf says, it looks like, that on John 5:7-8 that all three major manuscripts omit that passage "For there are three that bear record in heaven, The Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.(and the first line of vs 8) and these are three that bear witness in the earth"...

He claims the manuscripts say.... 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water and the blood and these three agree in one" (which is ok and certainly not heretical but is a different meaning than the above).

He takes this position by comparing what he calls the top three manuscripts which are the Vaticanus, the Alexandrinus and the one he found in 1859 at the convent of St. Catherine on Mt Sinai the 4th century Sinaiticus. He aims these three manuscripts at the English translation, apparently the King James.

He claims that all three of these better manuscripts are word for word on the passage "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water and the blood and these three agree in one".

He also shows vs 9 in all three manuscripts as being very different from the King James.

I will post just a bit of his reasons for this undertaking, which is very eloquent...


The effect of thus comparing the common English text with the most ancient authorities will be as often to disclose agreement as disagreement. True, the three great Manuscripts alluded to differ from each other both in age and authority, and no one of them can be said to stand so high that its sole verdict is sufficient to silence all contradiction. But to treat such ancient authorities with neglect would be either unwarrantable arrogance or culpable negligence; and it would be indeed a misunderstanding of the dealings of Providence if, after these documents had been preserved through all the dangers of fourteen or fifteen centuries, and delivered safe into our hands, we were not to receive them with thankfulness as most valuable instruments for the elucidation of truth.

It may be urged that our undertaking is opposed to true reverence; and that by thus exposing the inaccuracies of the English Version, we shall bring discredit upon a work which has been for centuries the object of love and veneration both in public and private. But those who would stigmatize the process of scientific criticism and test, which we propose, as irreverent, are greatly mistaken. To us the most reverential course appears to be, to accept nothing as the word of God which is not proved to be so by the evidence of the oldest, and therefore the most certain, witnesses that He has put into our hands.


Tischendorf



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. LOVE is the law, love under will."

c wat U did there? ya took something out of context and perceived it as bad. same goes with the bible. dont let others interpret/perceive it for u. read it urself and draw ur own conclusions. if not ur going to be lost forever.

p.s. religion is for people afraid of going to hell. spirituality is for people who have done been there.
edit on 2-5-2014 by npo902 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Correct... the latter part of that passage does not exist In the earliest texts we have...

not only that but one must also remember, the bible wasn't actually complied until 20-30 years after the council of Nicaea... the earliest texts are mostly fragments of books from various anonymous writers... which as I've stated are actually copies of copies of copies, and no one actually knows how many copies of each of them were in existence, or IF the originals said exactly what these copies say...simply because they're lost to history...

Now referring back to my earlier reply when I was talking about the credit card sized fragment... this isn't actually a proof text of the trinity as you stated, I think you confused what I was saying a bit... no big deal...

This text is a fragment of the gospel of John... Not an original piece either, but it is from the second century and that extremely small piece of text is the earliest fragment in existence as far as we know...

There is not a single piece of scripture from the bible that exists today from the first century... which is actually a very sad case... but I personally believe the Vatican and probably other libraries around the world do have texts from the first century that they keep from the public eye... Likely because IF they were released it would destroy the foundation of the religion in one foul swoop... but that's my opinion...




posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I had heard once of a possible major find at Pompeii. A private library of a wealthy guy that was supposed to produce preserved vellum copied of much of the New Testament. Never heard a thing about it after that.

And naturally many churches by 100ad had libraries with copies of all thing christian. Its hard to imagine that they were not in danger from periodic outbreaks against christians during the first few centuries.

As far as exposure of the truth if the Vatican gave up its oldest manuscripts, and the thought that this may threaten them as an organization, they were already threatened by the manuscripts they did approve during the reformation.

Another thought, most folks don't realize that the whole of all the gospels are written with the OT in mind. If one is even a fair student of the prophets the gospels are like stumbling all over the prophets. The prophets themselves are an interpretive tool of the gospel.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

When was the Revoluntionary War again? Or am I mistaken and Mexico tried to get some and we winded up with Texas and everything to the West?



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The concept of eternal salvation is very complex. One has to have the right definition of a "believer". It doesn't mean you can do as thou wilt, cuz than you were never saved in the first place. Again this should be taught only amongst the spiritually mature. Iys a tough steak.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: pleasethink


Even the term "Abrahamic" is a tag aimed at diminishing Hebrew and christian religions.



I am interested, why you would think that? Abrahamic is because it was Abraham who is considered the forefather of all three religions.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: JesusChristwins
Hearsays? Sure, about the thousands of miracles happening every day your reply is that they are a hearsay?


You can't be serious? Miracles? Show me given miracles and give me proof that pure luck has nothing to do with some of them?!



originally posted by: JesusChristwins
The fact that i live right now and write this post towards you after a fall from 3 meters as a child is coinsidence, not a miracle right?

Why can't be coincidence? Explain your reasoning.



originally posted by: JesusChristwins
When you cannot understand something it does not mean that that something is not true.

Making false statement does not make it true, sorry.



originally posted by: JesusChristwins
Yes, when there are no arguments to deny the existence of Jesus and God, no arguments to deny the Truth and you still deny to accept the facts and evidences then you can only mock the truth.

False, there is no evidence of his existence apart from Bible, which can't be seriusly taken as fact book. Sorry to burst your bubble... your examples are nothing - no evidence, just more claims about so called miracles. In the world we have false saints, no wonder we have false miracles. Just imagine how miracles had different meaning for uneducated people 1 or 2 thousands years ago...



originally posted by: JesusChristwins
As i said, always speaking with facts and evidences


Happy to help you

LOL

Here is 2 songs that I found cover both miracles and your evidence:





* Please note, adult language in both of song... presented by Dr. Minchin.


yeah, what is "pure luck?" (some of them?) explain the difference between coincidence, luck and miracles.

and you do know the hebrews were well educated, as a whole, right?

what? you think there were 4 people that could read and write back then?

what false saints? doesn't that mean that there were/are REAL saints?

your post failed and the utubes are moot. they only mean something to you, personally.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: JesusChristwins
a reply to: SuperFrog

Sure.

How about the New Testament? Did you ever read it? Of course not. Only know how to disrespect Christianism and God.

Slow down Jesus Christ, let's start form begining:

First you ask question, then you answer to it. That is called disrespect. I don't really care about religion in overall, so not picking on Christians as suggested or to your God, who btw you got by just pure luck, or should I call it a miracle - because there was a chance you would be born in middle east and believe in Allah, or believe in Ju-Ju on the top of mountain if you were born somewhere in middle Africa... (see where I am going with this...) what a MIRACLE.
(and relief, as all of those who were not that lucky will burn in hell, will they not?)



originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about the millions of Holy Martyrs, of Saints and people who believe in Christianism for more than 2000 years?

What kind of evidence is this? How can you take for evidence claims of people who lived after supposed time Christ lived?



originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about going into any Orthodox church and ask them to show you the libraries of books written from the Saints through the centuries, written from people who made miracles which were written and remembered for centuries, written by people who wanted to show how Jesus was?

Care to show that evidence. Again, someone writing about something that supposedly happened long time ago... Are you serious?



originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about, if you live in England, visit the great Orthodox monastery in Essex and ask them to provide you with proofs about Jesus exsistance for the rest of your life from books either of believers or not? Or any Orthodox monastery in the US, if you live in the US ( i would suggest the 2 Greek monasteries in Texas )?

Jesus lived in England or even better - in Texas?


originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about all the muslims through the centuries who became Christians because, as they all say, they saw Jesus?

There are many examples of Christians abolishing their religion for Islam or atheism. How this supposed to be proof of anything? Why should we trust this person who abandoned his previous belief and his previous God?


originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about visiting Mount Athos where you will find tons of books from the Roman times which all mention a person who was doing miracles and lived the life Jesus lived and at the same period of time?

There is no single book from time of Roman that points that Jesus ever existed. You, as someone who apparantly visited Athos should know that by now. Actually I am sure you know, otherwise you would give us simple example from book.


originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about checking the example of Saint Konstantine who became the first emperor of the Byzantine Empire and won the battle against Likinius in which battle he carried the Cross of Jesus after a dream he saw in which Jesus told him "in this you win" or "Εν τούτω νίκα"? A pagan turned into a Christian in 1 night?

Someone who lived 250 years later is good source of evidence, sure...


originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about searching the books which have been written about the Roman resources which described in the official Roman Empire's reports a person just like Jesus?

There is no single book like that, that points to person called 'Jesus', that was like that at that particular time.

But, there are books that talk about person born of Virgin, just as Christ, his father was God and many other connections to Christ including similar teaching that emphasize love and peace, his birth was foretold and many other similarities. His name was Krishna.


originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about the experiences millions had, experiences of them seeing Jesus or the Mother of Lord or any Saint telling them something that helped them later in their lives, or how they helped them in an important surgery?

Look at Tim Minchin video I showed on previous post - one titled 'Thank you God'.


originally posted by: JesusChristwinsHow about checking all the prophecies written by Saints of the Orthodox church, which prophecies have already come true?

What prophecies came true? Enlighten us, please. DO you have any for next 2-3 years?


originally posted by: JesusChristwins
How about checking the Holy paintings Evangelist and Apostle Luke painted with the Mother of Lord? He was next to her when he was painting them!

Do you know when Luke was born?? What do you think, how old he was when he made that 'holy paint' (first time I hear this
)



originally posted by: JesusChristwins
What else do you need? Christianism, and more specifically Orthodoxy, is the only religion that has never hidden anything and will never hide anything. Cause as Jesus said at John's 8:32 :

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."



Do you need more assistance from me? Or you wait chewed food in your mouth?


Some evidence, which you failed to provide, would help. You know, someone dreaming about Dragon does not make it real or true...


ahhh, you can not deny ignorance, it would not be bliss, would it?

i think you can be better off not talking about things you don't know about.

krishna? hari hari, green tambourines and saffron colored sheets!

what you think makes nothing real also.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Logarock

If by plenty who don't you mean the same creation scientists who think we road dinosaurs , then sure plenty do. Hell if you notice it's the same 3 or 4 guys who claim that. Hamm, Wyatt, man can't remember the other 2. :p


No historian not trying to prove Christianity believes that. All the historians who just take the evidence as it comes think it was the followers of the apostles who wrote the books.


kinda grasping, ya think?

pauls letters?

it's "rode" not road, btw.

gee, think they had a mac or pc after each day to blog on the bronze age internet?

what the heck is wrong with people?

too bad ATS wasn't around then, eh?

lol. wasn't it 1000yrs before someone found some ancient greek guy's copy of his writings?
how trustworthy is that? and it's like, only 1.

your argument is nonsensical and moot.

yeah, it could be the followers of the 12, lol, i really don't picture the 12 as the WH press corps, with iphones or even pen and paper in hand.

hey Jesus can you make a statement! Jesus! do a miracle for our readers!!!
Jesus! what are you gonna do with that prostitute!!
people want to know!!








posted on May, 3 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Logarock

Theres several actually.... the most famous of which is called the Johannine comma... 1 john; 5-7

Now we, as in you and I can not prove these things of course but any competent scholar knows this section of the book to be inserted at a later date then when it was written. They know this because the writing style is different in that specific section of the texts, and the fact that it is not mentioned in ANY of the earliest texts... in some translations they even have brackets around this part of the text because its well known to be a later addition

The originals are not needed when the earliest texts we have do not contain this passage...

As far as the trinity goes, its quite easy to dismantle as you put it because as I've been saying for years, the trinity is absent from the bible... the only way to prove said trinity is as you said... taking a piece from here and a piece from there and adding it together... No trinity was ever mentioned before Tertullian... No Trinity is taught by any of the apostles or Jesus himself...

In fact, IF one looks back into the actual documents of the Arian controversy... anyone can clearly see Arius was completely correct in his argument against the church on this subject... His arguments align completely with what Jesus taught...

I wrote a thread recently on Nicaea and the Arian controversy...

They called him a heretic but he was correct... and he was likely silenced because he would not adhere to the church and what they wanted to teach... which was not biblical, and to this day is NOT biblical...

Reconciling Arius...



lol, the dude kinda lost out. bummer.

so did a lot of runners up.

he was correct on what? are you a gnostic?

lots of idiotic things didn't make the cut. are you a believer?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join