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.

 

1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified – Vatican In Awe

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: knoledgeispower




Text for all we know, Hitler could be up in Heaven because he truly meant it when he asked for forgiveness.

Yes, I do believe that is right. There are none of us who should judge another because of that very thing you stated. But then along with that is the teaching of Jesus is that while we are living a conscious life in Christ Jesus that we should try to avoid being in fellowship with any abominations of God. That doesn't mean that in our daily living that we can avoid any contact with those who practice sin but it does mean that whenever possible we should try to separate our life from those who live in abominations.

Now whether or not that is called judgment or simply that of common sense is a large matter of disagreement in this modern culture. Jesus teaches that we must discern right from wrong by His doctrine. In other words you will know a tree by the fruit that it bears. If the doctrine of Jesus is correct then He taught that to even imagine lust is a sin. Then if I am aware of this teaching and I lust then I have committed sin. Regardless of whether it is male to female, male to male or female to female, it would be lust. But the bible does not give those exact words so that leaves room to spin it any way I want. All of us are spin doctors when it comes home to us. How many of us have lusted in our lives? Probably most all of us including the gals that dress to entice lust. So where does all of this subject eventually end? I guess right back where you said it best. We all will be judged eventually or maybe not at all. It is a matter of belief.




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: McGinty

caesarian son of cleopatra
keep in mind, that most scholars think octavian killed him. i disagree.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Jesus- Esu of Egypt

there's a video on the subject, although i disagree with her on some of her claims, i think the research she has done is commendable. unfortunately, it isn't entirely accurate.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
Jesus- Esu of Egypt

there's a video on the subject, although i disagree with her on some of her claims, i think the research she has done is commendable. unfortunately, it isn't entirely accurate.


Yes, they could have used better video quality than the old movie Cleopatra.

Question, why would the monks of the Himalayan monastery choose to write about one teenage boy?

If you want a good view from someone who has done research, Ravi Zacharias on
Jesus Among Other Gods

Ravi is from India and interacts with religious leaders as well as secular all over Asia and the Middle East.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

my research is a bit more indepth than you're assuming. i don't start at the time of jesus and go forward but rather at genesis 1. so my commentary isn't based simply on secular texts and it definitely incorporates the entire bible. wish i could give you a short synopsis but considering we're talking thousands, and in some cases hundreds of thousands of years, there's not going to be a reader's digest version of it that's less than a few hundred pages long.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WarminIndy

my research is a bit more indepth than you're assuming. i don't start at the time of jesus and go forward but rather at genesis 1. so my commentary isn't based simply on secular texts and it definitely incorporates the entire bible. wish i could give you a short synopsis but considering we're talking thousands, and in some cases hundreds of thousands of years, there's not going to be a reader's digest version of it that's less than a few hundred pages long.


I started at Genesis 1 in an earlier post. But we go in depth as much as you wish, but just to let you be aware of what I have already researched, I have read the Rig Vedas, the Avestas,the Mahabarahta, the Popol Vuh and many other texts. I can talk all day on the Polynesian god Pele or Ragnarok and how the Elder Futhark runes tell the story of the flood, how Shang Di is worshiped pre-Buddhism in ancient China and the flood also on the Oracle Bones.

I can also talk all day about Mani, the Roman, Greek and Egyptian pantheons as well as Scandinavian. We could talk about the Shambahla Warrior Prophecy if you wish. I can also talk about the Sumerian and Canaanite religions of Tiamat and Shamash. We could also talk about Harappa and the ram caught in a thicket.

But I can also talk about how the Bible is unique compared to other religious texts, in that the Bible is the ONLY ancient text that shows us that this God interacts personally with mankind and speaks to those who are listening. The Bible is unique also in that it not only asks the question "What is man?" but answers it, within the text. With all the comparisons of ancient religions, not even in Egypt does any of the chimera gods have a personal relationship with any adherent. And that is what makes the religion of Moses unique, because it is the first time in human history that any ancient text not only told us about the power of God, the glory of God, but also the deep inner longing of man's desire for fellowship with God.

As Jeremiah said "You knew me before I was even developed in the womb". That's a powerful statement, no other religious text makes that claim. "You knew me and cared for me" is the moral lesson of the Bible. And in that knowing and caring, as a parent who knows their children, cares enough to place discipline and truth in them.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

then we have alot in common, as i have also studied those things. the issue at hand is very old, and goes back to the creation of the adam. the very first time the word "man" appears in the book of genesis, the original language reveals that is adam, not man. this is important because the first adam is not a human being. he's/she's an elohim copy. these are not synonmous, et.al, man and adam were originally two different things - in fact, no humans appear in the text till the fall narrative. furthermore, the male and female adam were created at that time, both in the image of elohim. adam and elohim are both plural words. so we have right from the start, a whole race of male and female elohim copies. not humans. this is important to understand because nothing else will make sense if you don't grasp what the text is saying.

i am not going to post further on the topic, till you respond to that.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WarminIndy

then we have alot in common, as i have also studied those things. the issue at hand is very old, and goes back to the creation of the adam. the very first time the word "man" appears in the book of genesis, the original language reveals that is adam, not man. this is important because the first adam is not a human being. he's/she's an elohim copy. these are not synonmous, et.al, man and adam were originally two different things - in fact, no humans appear in the text till the fall narrative. furthermore, the male and female adam were created at that time, both in the image of elohim. adam and elohim are both plural words. so we have right from the start, a whole race of male and female elohim copies. not humans. this is important to understand because nothing else will make sense if you don't grasp what the text is saying.

i am not going to post further on the topic, till you respond to that.


Yes, but were the Elohim flesh or spirit? Were we created by beings of flesh or beings of spirit?

God is a spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. That's the first understanding from the text, exactly what was the Elohim?

The Rig Vedas call Him Brahma, the Ultimate Being, one of spirit.

Zoroaster calls Him Ahura Mazda, the one God of spirit.

The Hebrews call Him HaShem (the Name) and the Tetragrammaton says "I AM". That was translated to Yaweh, but the term is more than just a local Canaanite god of storms, as Tiamat also is the goddess of chaos and storms. When Moses spoke with God on the mountain, God said "Tell them I AM sent you". Asher h'yah vehoveh vey'voh. The God who WAS and IS and IS TO COME.

If the beings who from heaven to earth came are flesh and their creator is flesh, then that is not the God that is a spirit. But all of this Annunaki worship is based on beings of flesh who came from another planet, but God exists beyond the universe, in that realm that is spiritual. That's the understanding you have to get from the Bible.

The Spirit wars against the flesh. Even in you, your spirit wars against your flesh when you know to do right and choose not to fight and give in to the flesh, to satisfy the flesh, or that which is pleasing to your flesh but adds nothing to your spirit, which it is your spirit that desires fellowship with God.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: knoledgeispower I give credit to you for standing up for what you believe.
I believe we are more capable of doing good than we actually put forth.Every individual walks away with a little different interpretation,because we are all a little different! Different is not wrong,it takes strength.Cheers!




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

that's further down the road. we're still back in genesis.
so we have a bunch of male and female copies of elohim. they eat, talk to animals,
name critters, etc. HOWEVER, they don't multiply via procreation but via being copied from elohim. we get several hints that this is the case, for example, pain in childbirth was a new thing in the fall narrative.

you also have to ask yourself, if the adam of the fall narrative was lonely, and god made him a partner, what happened to the other adam males and females that were made before that? this is an easy one -- adam wanted a person to mate with. that's what the verse is telling you. why all of the sudden? also easy -- he had already been changed to be procreative. then the procreative dna was used as a template for making the eve a procreator as well. was that a problem? according the angry elohim who cursed the new humans to shortened lifespans and so on, yeah, it was a problem. why? if he just made them procreative? answer: the mad guy, that's the accuser. your spirit should tell you that god would not get mad at you for being what he created you to be. but in the fall narrative, he's really quite angry about the whole ordeal.

the next thing to look at is the word elohim. elohim is a plural word but is used in the royal we voice in the creation of the adam males and females. however, the second use of elohim in the verse, suggests that these are the elohim who are being copied. what that means is, a singular elohim as the head of a divine council and creator of life, is creating multiple adam males and females, using other elohim as templates. he's creating them during the same time he's created other lifeforms.

consider it was moses who wrote this down, and he had the history available from two sources-- his mother who carried the mesopotamian tradition and pharaoh's scholars who had the information passed down from ham's descendants. they are both the same creation accounts (egyptian and mesopotamian, that is, it's just culturalized, for lack of a better word). moses had to explain this and using a venacular the people were familar with. they had already learned the name of the creator was atum (which see).

however, if you look at the very first name on the sumerian kings list, the name is alulim. i believe this was an earlier version of elohim and thus, also the name for atum (a plural word, adam, a plural word, elohim, a plural word). to sum it up quickly, the adam were named after their creator and the elohim templates they were copied from. as a result atum=adam=alulim=elohim. for many reasons, this is why jesus referred to himself as the second adam and why he called himself the son of adam (the son of atum).

here is where i think moses prayed for guidance on how to write this down so that it wouldn't confuse people. so he opted to call the created -- adam (the egyptian name), and the creator -- elohim (the mesopotamain name), even though it was essentially the same word.


edit on 7-5-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WarminIndy



The Hebrew word is adamu, which means mankind.

The Israelites had been slaves for 400 years in Egypt, so I find it highly unlikely Yochaved was carrying any Mesopotamian legends by the time Moses was born. And the fact that you chose to indicate that because the adamu were gifted with procreative longings, defies the argument that people are born gay. You can't make it both ways. Either mankind (including women in that) are created with the sense and longing to procreate, then it has nothing to do with sexual relationships with anybody.

The Genesis account says that Adam needed a compatible helpmeet, so woman was taken from his rib. Her name is Eve, or Chava, the Mother. It was through Eve that mankind was to propogate, but through compatability with the Adam. Man is nothing without the female, female is nothing without the male, except for the longing to mate with the compatible. That kind of takes away from "born gay".

"Does not even nature itself teach you what is unseemly?" That's what Paul says, because nature was designed for male/female compatibility. Even Buddhism teaches this in the Yin-Yang, male/female, positive/negative. So humans are designed with the longing for procreation and desire for that which is compatible for the purpose of procreation. That's the sum of the argument that I just read from you.

There is no evidence of the Royal We, that is a Muslim argument that holds no water, because the Royal We was not used prior to Queen Elizabeth I.

We see by the time of Cain, that God does not use WE, He uses I. Therefore, the Royal We cannot be applied again because nowhere in the Bible is the term WE used, God refers to Himself in the singular. The Elohim is the plural that is the basis for Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That is proven in Genesis 18, when Abraham meets God at his tent in Mamre.

There were three separate and distinct individuals that Abraham called Lord, from the Orthodox Jewish Bible


Genesis 18:1 And Hashem appeared unto him in the terebinth trees of Mamre; and he sat in the entrance of the ohel (tent) in the heat of the day;
2 And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, hinei, Shloshah Anashim (Three Men, [Yeshayah 6:3]) stood by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the entrance of the ohel, and prostrated himself on the ground,
3 And said, Adonoi [Hashem, see v.13], if now I have found chen (favor) in Thy sight, pass not on by, please, from Thy servant;


The Lord appeared as three men. This clearly is not a Mesopotamian legend and certainly not for the purpose of the Royal WE.

Westminster Leningrad Codex, the oldest manuscript and basis for Masoretic text


18 וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙ יְהוָ֔ה בְּאֵלֹנֵ֖י מַמְרֵ֑א וְה֛וּא יֹשֵׁ֥ב פֶּֽתַח־הָאֹ֖הֶל כְּחֹ֥ם הַיֹּֽום׃
2 וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּה֙ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים נִצָּבִ֖ים עָלָ֑יו וַיַּ֗רְא וַיָּ֤רָץ לִקְרָאתָם֙ מִפֶּ֣תַח הָאֹ֔הֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ אָֽרְצָה׃
3 וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֗י אִם־נָ֨א מָצָ֤אתִי חֵן֙ בְּעֵינֶ֔יךָ אַל־נָ֥א תַעֲבֹ֖ר מֵעַ֥ל עַבְדֶּֽךָ׃
4 יֻקַּֽח־נָ֣א מְעַט־מַ֔יִם וְרַחֲצ֖וּ רַגְלֵיכֶ֑ם וְהִֽשָּׁעֲנ֖וּ תַּ֥חַת הָעֵֽץ׃
5 וְאֶקְחָ֨ה פַת־לֶ֜חֶם וְסַעֲד֤וּ לִבְּכֶם֙ אַחַ֣ר תַּעֲבֹ֔רוּ כִּֽי־עַל־כֵּ֥ן עֲבַרְתֶּ֖ם עַֽל־עַבְדְּכֶ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֵּ֥ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּֽרְתָּ׃


It is therefore to get around the oldest manuscript that says three men, called Lord. It is those three present and active in Creation.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

who offered the planet to jesus in return for his fealty? the god of this world is the guy who got angry that we were procreating on his planet. he took it to the divine court
the planet has a lease of ownership.

there are several meanings of adam, but adam didn't start off human. adam started off, as the text explains, as a copy of elohim. the adam are now considered human because evidence of the original adam race is missing.

i'm not sure why you brought up the either/or thing, regarding homosexuality?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
god had to go down to the planet earth, and travel from abe's tent to sodom and gomorrah to find out if the reports were true. that doesn't sound like a supernatural being. that sounds like an earthly ruler and his entourage. in fact, the words used for lord are interchangeably used for earthly judges, rulers, and gods.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
eve is mother. weren't there mothers before that? apparently not. and that's because the first adam race was not procreative. they were copies. no pain in childbirth, total control over the size of the population, no problem if the adam have eternally regenerating bodies, since the population wouldn't increase in size unless needed so eating from the tree of life was okee dokee.

note that the first adam race, could eat from any tree they wanted. and then, suddenly, they are not allowed to eat from any tree they want. note it says be fruitful and multiply. then it shows the bad guy melting down over procreating humans. it was his planet. he didn't want us procreating on it. two different guys - one that created us and gave us procreation and then, the god of this world, also known as the accuser and the adversary, evoked divine law to nerf our dna. cut off access to the tree of life -- he didn't want eternally regenerating humans, procreating like mad and over populating his garden planet.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WarminIndy

who offered the planet to jesus in return for his fealty? the god of this world is the guy who got angry that we were procreating on his planet. he took it to the divine court
the planet has a lease of ownership.

there are several meanings of adam, but adam didn't start off human. adam started off, as the text explains, as a copy of elohim. the adam are now considered human because evidence of the original adam race is missing.

i'm not sure why you brought up the either/or thing, regarding homosexuality?


The Hebrew word is Adamu and means just what it says.

Man was made from the dust of the earth, and then God breathed in his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. Just before the breath of life, adam was dust. Our bodies return to dust, the same since the beginning. This flesh is sustained by the breath of life, without it, there is no life.

That is why it is important to understand what exactly is the Creator, flesh or spirit? Only a spiritual being can breath life into a being of flesh for it to live. And you are comprised of spirit, soul and flesh. You are a living soul, but your flesh did not cause that. Neither did fleshly aliens.

The god of this world is Satan, but through the power of Christ, his right to rule ended over you, if you are a believer. And that's what all of the Bible leads to, resurrection of the flesh to glorified flesh, only through the Resurrection of the second Adam.


1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

We bear the image of the earth, because we were made from it. The very first man was human, it was his soul that bore the image of God, because man did not live until that moment. The two Adams? The first man and then the Lord Jesus Christ. Take this back to Genesis 1, man became a living soul simply because of the breath of life, but man cannot be quickened from death and was subject to death until the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and those that believe in Him are also quickened by the newness of the spiritual life. And what is the purpose of that? To bring us back into fellowship with God, that was lost in the beginning.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
god had to go down to the planet earth, and travel from abe's tent to sodom and gomorrah to find out if the reports were true. that doesn't sound like a supernatural being. that sounds like an earthly ruler and his entourage. in fact, the words used for lord are interchangeably used for earthly judges, rulers, and gods.


You clearly didn't read the Hebrew. The Lord as it was used in that verse...HaShem, that is the name that Jews call God, it means "The Name". I think you might have missed that one.

If you read the chapters more thoroughly before and after, God says, "Their sin has reached my nostrils" and then threatens to kill them all, Abraham begs for God to spare the city and it gets down to the fact there were not even 10 righteous people in order to spare the city. Abraham had this conversation with God, but in the conversation at the tent door, they also tell Sarah she is going to have a son. Sarah laughed to herself.

What earthly ruler? Because at the end, God turned away from Abraham and went off to Sodom. So what earthly ruler would Abraham, the friend of God, bow down to and worship?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
eve is mother. weren't there mothers before that? apparently not. and that's because the first adam race was not procreative. they were copies. no pain in childbirth, total control over the size of the population, no problem if the adam have eternally regenerating bodies, since the population wouldn't increase in size unless needed so eating from the tree of life was okee dokee.

note that the first adam race, could eat from any tree they wanted. and then, suddenly, they are not allowed to eat from any tree they want. note it says be fruitful and multiply. then it shows the bad guy melting down over procreating humans. it was his planet. he didn't want us procreating on it. two different guys - one that created us and gave us procreation and then, the god of this world, also known as the accuser and the adversary, evoked divine law to nerf our dna. cut off access to the tree of life -- he didn't want eternally regenerating humans, procreating like mad and over populating his garden planet.



Can I ask you this, since I have been using the Bible in every one of my answers, can you please give us an independent source for every theory that you just presented? You have gone from saying you researched all of this and then you present us with your own assumptions without resources.

From where do you get these ideas?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

it's in the bible. read what it says about the first adam race. they could eat from any tree they wanted.
eve is mother. you said it yourself. there were no mothers before that because they didn't procreate before that. they were copied. in the image of elohim.
elohim another word that applies to many things, not just a supreme god.
in one verse adam is from 'adam, meaning mankind.
in another verse, adam is from 'Adam meaning red.
elsewhere, a word that is translated to adam, was originally iysh. eve was created from an iysh. when you study what an iysh is, it kinda messes with your head.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
to know, or have knowledge of, meant to have sex. therefore, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is the tree of procreation. in other words, the inheritable (genetic tree) part of human dna, responsible for procreation. we began "to know" ((pro)create) good and evil. adam knew his wife and she begat. the entire fall narrative is about the owner of this planet getting mad over the concept of humans creating copies of themselves.

here you have 2 people, adam and eve, suddenly noticing each other's naked bodies. why didn't they notice that before? easy, because they didn't have sex drives before that, because they weren't procreators. who told you you were naked? why'd he ask that question if he was the one that gave them procreation? answer: he wasn't the one who gave them procreation -- the "serpent" (dna) did, and the dna for procreation was given to us by the creator god, who is jesus, who is enki - ya know the one that said, go forth be fruitful and multiply?

the other guy, that's the synagogue of satan fella.
edit on 7-5-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Jesus was a messiah, not just a profit. Son of God is used as a reference in the old testament for what appears to mean someone filled with the spirit of god.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join