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.

 

Have you heard about this Savior?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

There's overwhelming evidence that Christianity plagiarized several precedent cultures as part of the campaign to transition filthy heathen pagans from their polytheistic traditions to the more sophisticated monotheism that was sweeping the nation. The irony is that the plagiarized selections were exactly the traditions they were trying to stomp out. I would Google it for you, but I would hate to rob you of the benefits you would derive from your own proper research.
edit on 25-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam


Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you make what I think is your point, or at least help you make a better case for it. Though, I'm loss as to why you think it's a point worth making or how it qualifies as a "gotcha" moment for Christians.

Okay then.

It's clear to me (and has been for several decades) that the myths/legends built around the figure "Jesus" were pre-existing among the Greeks/Romans. There are just too many parallels - too many 'exactly the same' or 'very similar' stories.

I think that the majority of Christians are (still) unaware of the timelessness of their beloved myths, which they call truth only in regards to Jesus. So, it's a "gotcha" moment for those who are oblivious to the predecessors of Jesus.

Thanks for your help, though.

If you'd enjoy reading more, I recommend The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.


edit on 5/25/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity




I would Google it for you, but I would hate to rob you of the benefits you would derive from your own proper research.


Thank you. I do enjoy doing "proper research" and I think that is evidenced in this thread. Do you enjoy doing "proper research"? You'll have to pardon me for asking, but I don't see any evidence of that in this thread.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam


Do you enjoy doing "proper research"? You'll have to pardon me for asking, but I don't see any evidence of that in this thread.

Okay, I was ready to (and did) give you the benefit of the doubt - but now I'm non-plussed.

I've done lots of research. If you can help make the case, then please contribute. If not, then please desist from insulting those of us who have spent 1000s of hours looking into these things, and are confident in our findings.



edit on 5/25/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: AfterInfinity




I would Google it for you, but I would hate to rob you of the benefits you would derive from your own proper research.


Thank you. I do enjoy doing "proper research" and I think that is evidenced in this thread. Do you enjoy doing "proper research"? You'll have to pardon me for asking, but I don't see any evidence of that in this thread.





Maybe we're waiting for you to oblige.

edit on 25-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Hey Buzzy,



It's clear to me (and has been for several decades) that the myths/legends built around the figure "Jesus" were pre-existing among the Greeks/Romans. There are just too many parallels - too many 'exactly the same' or 'very similar' stories.


I haven't examined every myth or legend that are purported to be antecedents to the story of Jesus, however in those I have, including the Asclepius myth, (Thank you for that, I'd never head of Asclepius before your thread), I don't see them as being based on seriously meaningful parallels or, in some cases, that the differences don't greatly outweigh the similarities.

In any case, I don't see/assign the significance in/to those parallels that you do. (At least not in and of themselves)

Anyway, thanks for creating the thread, I've enjoyed the conversation and all the research/thinking it's entailed.

Regards,

William



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity




Probably because we're waiting for you to do it yourself, for yourself.


Again, the proof that I am willing and capable of doing research is evident in this thread. What's not evident in the thread is that you're capable or willing to do any research . . . or carrying on a meaningful dialogue.

Cheers



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

This is a meaningful dialogue. I'm trying to convince you to go out and research all of the elements and symbology and dates and events and see how much the Bible has stolen from pagan cultures preceding Jesus by thousands of years. I'm not going to do it for you.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That reply was to Afterinfinity and his statement, not you Buzzy or any statements you've made. I'm going to assume you didn't realize that.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
So apparently, the idea of "savior" is not exclusive to any particular religion, spirituality, or philosophy - contrary to claims made by various agencies and their adherents.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam


What's not evident in the thread is that you're capable or willing to do any research . . . or carrying on a meaningful dialogue.

That is unfair, even if you were intending it for AfterInfinity. Plus, you did say that the thread shows no indication of anyone having done research.

Yes, I saw your "not to you, Buzzy" post....
but how do you know what research others on the thread have done??

Do you not agree that it takes ALL of us to figure out the 'truth'?





edit on 5/25/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Ok . . .



Thank you. I do enjoy doing "proper research" and I think that is evidenced in this thread. Do you enjoy doing "proper research"? You'll have to pardon me for asking, but I don't see any evidence of that in this thread.


The above being a reply clearly marked as being to AfterAfinity to which you responded:



Plus, you did say that the thread shows no indication of anyone having done research.


No I didn't. I wrote that there wasn't any evidence in the thread that Afterafinity enjoyed doing any proper research after his snarky comment to me and his unsubstantiated statements. That would be clear to anyone not trying to look for a reason to take offense.



That is unfair, even if you were intending it for AfterInfinity

Wow . . ."even if you were" with the italicized emphasis on "were' almost sounds like you're questioning whether my comments were directed at AfterAfinity Well, a clue that I might be directing my comments to him is that I quoted AfterAfnity and the great big "REPLY TO AFTERAFINITY" before each of my replies. Trying to imply that I was directing those comments towards you when I clearly wasn't is bad form and dishonest. Furthermore, I think what's unfair is for someone to make unsubstantiated comments in a discussion like this.



but how do you know what research others on the thread have done??


Hmm. . . lets see . . . I might know if they offered any substantiation in the thread for their statements, which AfterAfinity hasn't done here. All he/she did was offer up some general statements about a huge body of material, state that the evidence in support of those statements was "overwhelming" and then move on to provide absolutely no evidence and suggest that I "do some proper research".



Do you not agree that it takes ALL of us to figure out the 'truth'?


No, of course not, what a ridiculous notion. What problem has ever been solved by "ALL" of us? What "true" solution would ever be less true because it wasn't arrived at by everyone?

And since you've seen fit to move forward as if I my statement to Afterafinity was directed to you I'll respond to what I would have otherwise ignored:



Okay, I was ready to (and did) give you the benefit of the doubt


Umm . . . I couldn't care less if you gave me the benefit of the doubt or not, where in this discussion have I required you to give me the benefit of the doubt? Why would that matter to me? In what sense were you even "giving me the benefit of the doubt"? What are you even talking about?



I've done lots of research. If you can help make the case, then please contribute.If not, then please desist from insulting those of us who have spent 1000s of hours looking into these things, and are confident in our findings.


I don't have to limit my contributions to helping you make your case. As far as I know, polite constructive criticism, exactly what I provided to you, is entirely acceptable here on ATS. As far as insulting people goes, I responded to a snarky comment directed at me with one of my own, if you're looking for me to feel bad about that, I suggest you don't hold your breath.

As far as the "1000's of hours" you've "spent looking into these things" I certainly hope that your take on the Asclepius myth, the significance you grant it and the conclusions you draw from it aren't a measure of what you've accomplished; because if so, your confidence is seriously misplaced.

Here is what's happened in this thread. I put forward some points that undercut something that you were SOOO sure about. I challenged you to articulate why what you're pointing out would be significant even if you could show it to be true, but apparently you can't. Now you're mad, but you don't really have anything to explain away my points, you can't articulate why your points are significant if true, so you're going to pretend to take offense at some imaginary insult you claim I've directed at you and steer the thread away from the topic of the thread and the weaknesses in the argument you put forward.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was intended to be some incestuous "HA HA HA AREN'T CHRISTIANS STUPID" thread. If I'd realized that I wouldn't have interrupted the spastic glee that some of you enjoy when you mistakenly think you've come up with proof that Christianity is somehow illegitimate.

All I can say is "Cheers" carry on and enjoy the party.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: godlover25
You are really over reacting. Chill out. The OP told a story that is in the folklore/myth books. The fact that the story exists, isn't 'slander'. And as far as 'heresy' ... again you make me laugh. It's JUST A STORY.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Where did Enki and Enlil come from? Aliens?

That what I think. It's either total myth or it's folklore based on an alien visitation.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was intended to be some incestuous "HA HA HA AREN'T CHRISTIANS STUPID" thread.
It's sort of set up where it could easily go in that direction.
It can also be an opportunity to make some nice assertions about Christianity.
You know, there are a set of books by Eusebius on "The Preparation For the Gospel".
He said these myths were actually helpful for when Jesus came, people would recognize him as the Savior.
The Jewish mythology was not all that helpful since it just led them expect a military warrior type savior.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Where did Enki and Enlil come from? Aliens?

That what I think. It's either total myth or it's folklore based on an alien visitation.


just out of curiosity-- you have defended the catholic church in prior threads so i assumed you were in support of their paradigm vs. the rest of the world's religions (well i dunno what you think about buddhism or hinduism but supporting the rcc is the equivalent of calling those religions myth-based) , is this the new position of the church, that the bible stories are myths or folklores based on alien visitation or is it your personal view?
edit on 25-5-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
you have defended the catholic church in prior threads so i assumed you were in support of their paradigm vs. the rest of the world's religions

I support the Catholic Church's right to conduct it's outreaches (hospitals, schools, clinics) in a manner that goes along with their belief system. That means, if they want to run a hospital outreach that doesn't do abortions or doesn't hand out condoms, then that is their right. If they want to have the Hail Mary prayer in their schools, then they have that right. I disagree with their interpretation of scripture on Onanism (birth control), but they have a right to believe it and run their hospitals in accordance with those beliefs.

(well i dunno what you think about buddhism or hinduism but supporting the rcc is the equivalent of calling those religions myth-based) ,

I like Hinduism more than Buddhism because Buddhism has the annihilation of the soul whereas the Hindus do not (If I'm following it correctly). That being said, the last book I read was Buddhist preparation for death .... and I thought it was outstanding. A don't buy into the Bardo or the 'gods' of those religions but I think they have a lot to offer in other areas ... like 'The Middle Way' ...

is this the new position of the church, that the bible stories are myths or folklores based on alien visitation or is it your personal view?

The only thing the Catholic church has said about aliens is that they probably exist and that if they do, it won't effect humans faith in God. God can be God of everyone ... including aliens. The last couple of popes has said that if it turns out that evolution happened and not the mythological 'creationism' story with Adam and Eve, then it doesn't negate the fact that it was God's guiding hand that used evolution in order to, at some point, create the first male and female human.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam


As far as the "1000's of hours" you've "spent looking into these things" I certainly hope that your take on the Asclepius myth, the significance you grant it and the conclusions you draw from it aren't a measure of what you've accomplished; because if so, your confidence is seriously misplaced.

Here is what's happened in this thread. I put forward some points that undercut something that you were SOOO sure about. I challenged you to articulate why what you're pointing out would be significant even if you could show it to be true, but apparently you can't. Now you're mad, but you don't really have anything to explain away my points, you can't articulate why your points are significant if true,


Please excuse the delay in responding to you.
My computer was doing updates for 24 hours....

Now. I'm not "mad". When I make threads, I read EVERY POST in them, and respond. Yes, you did clearly respond to AftIn, but you ALSO said "I don't see any evidence of research in this thread." Live with it. That is what you said.
Who is being defensive here???

I'm sure that there were Greek and Roman gods who were considered saviors - and the 1000s of hours that I have put in were not all about Asclepius. So - you lied. You weren't trying to help me make my case.

It's very clear that there have been "saviors" forever and ever since this bout of 'civilization' rebooted and started over.
Aside from that - Yeah. Gotcha.

Saviors, all over the place. Jesus is not unique in any way.
And further more, he would NOT be pleased with modern 'Christianity.'



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

. . . he would NOT be pleased with modern 'Christianity.'
I don't think Jesus would be, if you mean the corporations created for the institutionalized hierarchy that represents itself as "the church".
I think it is like Jesus said, that the kingdom is inside of us.
And I would add that he means within us as a group, not that an entire kingdom exists within a single person.
Each person has in him the spirit that is in common within all who are of that kingdom.


edit on 26-5-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   


It's very clear that there have been "saviors" forever and ever since this bout of 'civilization' rebooted and started over.


The problem is that this is pretty much meaningless information. That is what william is trying to point out. There were deities that people considered to be saviors prior to Jesus. So what? There were healing God's, etc. What is your point? How does this prove anything, and why is it of any significance?

Essentially, you should just come out and say what you really mean, which is that you are a Christ Mythicist because you see parallels between certain ancient belief systems and characters and Jesus of Nazareth and his followers. Unfortunately for you, that does nothing to demonstrate the latter never existed.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join