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 ARTICLE that your Church DOES NOT want you to read!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Thanks, DF1 and DontTreadOnMe for the link. You saved this thread!

Jukyu, I don't change thread names unless there is profanity in them, I don't change them merely because they are incorrect or make saleman-like claims.

I know where you are coming from; I have heard the voive of God, and I have seen His ability to take direct action on behalf of His children; silly books and internet links trying to disuade people from Christianity does nothing to change that. I assure you, know Christian has ever turned from God because of such nonsense.

No, Masterp, it is not a "known fact" to historians that Judaism originated from Zoroastrianism. Some may believe that to be the case, but, as you would tell me about my faith, a believe does not make a fact.




posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I would like to add my thoughts to the above statement.

Taking people away from God?
that would be pretty hard... clap your hands... theres God.
God isn't a physical or nonphysical being, you can't take someone away from him/her/it
Any idea you have about God is just that... an Idea, alike with past and future, they are just idea, not realities. Reality is the here and now, That is God... it is unmeasurable and eternal, Now never ends, it always begins.

(18) The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will come to pass." Jesus said, "Then have you laid bare the beginning, so that you are seeking the end? For the end will be where the beginning is. Blessed is the person who stands at rest in the beginning. And that person will be acquainted with the end and will not taste death."



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No, Masterp, it is not a "known fact" to historians that Judaism originated from Zoroastrianism. Some may believe that to be the case, but, as you would tell me about my faith, a believe does not make a fact.


It is a known fact. Yahweh is a tribal, man-like, god along with several other like Baalzebub, snakes and spiders etc.. It is the Persian Zoroastrian Empire that forced jews to accept a universal god, Ahura-Mazda, as supreme being. The jews still call him Yahweh, but in fact he's the perfect Zoroastrian Ahura-Mazda.


Here's the link : www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 4-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Ass all the links you wish, Moku, have every link you can find that has someone that suggests that Adam and Eve were not the first, created by God, and that He did not maintain a blood line that would be a direct lineage to His Son, that He did not lay down His laws, His way for us to conduct ourselves both with Him and with each other; it is all a moot point. You may believe whatever you wish. What you will not be able to do is prove that the Bible is incorrect, only that others have another idea.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What you will not be able to do is prove that the Bible is incorrect, only that others have another idea.


The point i'm trying to make is that when assessing the ancient testament, it is important to know under what circumstances, by whom, and under what influences the different parts were written, and how they wre later edited. The link i provided gives a clue to that.

[edit on 4-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
And, the point I am making is that your link is one idea, and that the idea infers that this is the way it is. I, and many, disagree and reject this nonsense for what it is.

The evidence of the prior allegation, Moku? Why not work on that particular point of interest?



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Im sorry, but I feel that was actually an awesome interpetation of ones thoughts about religion. Thinking like that is very hard to do, so give this poster some credit for his hard work..


Just my thoughts..



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I'm sorry, I didn't word my post very well. I was trying to be light hearted about the name and then that I would read the thread and see what I thought. I apologize that the first part came out as serious.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
LOL! Don't sweat it at all! If anyone understands light-heartedness not flying well on the typed medium, it has got to be me!
I apologize for not looking from that angle.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   
It sadness my heart to see so many people who defend their religion but it is time now when all the secrets and deceive shall surface. This very article IS a war against the foundation of Christianity and any other religions. I am not an atheist or the "anti-christ". I believe in God but I also believe in honesty and once upon a time comes that moment where you as an individual must become truthful with yourself and others. Many of you will accuse me to be fraud yet none of those who claimed this to be forgery even tried to examine the facts. Accusation without research is ignorance! You ignor this because I challenge your views and beliefs. Remember if your very foundation is based on send it will sink and you might find yourself in very miserable situation. It is only the courages hearts with a lot of will power who will able to change their views and admit they were wrong. Those who seek the truth shall find it only if they are true to themselves.




I know where you are coming from; I have heard the voive of God, and I have seen His ability to take direct action on behalf of His children; silly books and internet links trying to disuade people from Christianity does nothing to change that. I assure you, know Christian has ever turned from God because of such nonsense.


Here is a good example of someone who is defending his views no matter what the other side has to present, no matter how many facts he will be presented with. We all know the bible, we all studied the bible now it's is time for us to present our facts. If you beLIEve a blind faith, if you do not question everything you see, read or hear then you will always only delude yourself and you will never find truth in anything.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I don't think you should start thinking of the writer of that web page as any great guru or theologian. This is one of thousands of pages where someone educated ONLY in the US version of history and pretty much familiar only with the Bible declares that they have the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything.

There's a number of really glaring errors there. This one grabbed me:


Keep in mind that all the theological teachings of the Western World were developed in the Northern Hemisphere


Uhm... right. All of them, huh? Including the ones that the Mayas used and the Incas and Olmecs and so on and so forth?

And then there was this bit:

First. no people of the ancient world believed the "Sun" to be "God". That belongs in the "disinformation file".

The author apparently didn't do any reading on the Egyptians when he was busy receiving his information. Or the Greeks. Or the Romans. Or various Native American religions, Sumerians, Babylonians, etc, etc, etc.

The subsequent pages show a lack of deep understanding of various religions.

He also shows a remarkable lack of understanding of linguistics and ignores all the cultures for whom Night was a goddess and a kindly figure (Egypt, for one):

12. And of course the reverse was equally true. The dark evil of night was ruled by none other than..."Prince of Darkness"... The EVIL / DEVIL.


Furthermore, Christianity was one of the VERY few religions (I think there are only 3-4) which have a "god of evil" that was nearly equal to the "god of good," They borrowed it from the Zororastrians.

In other religions, the "evil powers" were demons; small forces that might be more powerful than man were weaker than the multiple gods and demigods.

And Horus was never portrayed as a "dove" (oy veh!) Nor was the newly risen son the "Horus-son." Ra's craft simply descended into the underworld where Bast and others helped fend off the Serpent and the sun boat emerged newly victorious each morning... with Ra himself at the helm.


21. But now, what about the evil brother of God's Sun, that old rascally "Prince of Darkness" himself? In the Egyptian, he was called "SET". We are told in the Bible that when God's Sun died, He left the world in the hands of the Evil Prince of Darkness. This evil prince took over the world at "SON-SET".

Forgive me... but that's just wrong. "Set" in the English language does NOT come from the name of an Egyptian god. Furthermore, Set was not a figure of Ultimate Evil and in a judgement in quarrel between Horus and Set, it is determined that Set was unjustly deprived of a reward and redress is made. He is invited to the heavens where he dwells in peace and thunders at humans:



Then Ptah the Great, South of his Wall, Lord of Memphis, said, “What shall we do for Set, now that Heru has been placed on the seat of Wesir?”

Ra-Harakhti said, "Let Set be given to me to dwell with me and be my son. And he shall thunder in the sky and be feared.”
www.per-aset.org...


Set is a complex figure and depending on which cult happened to rule at the moment he was either a defender or a bad guy:
www.luckymojo.com...

The whole thing is really very romantic theorizing someone who got inspired by the Bible and tried to tie all the religions in the world to be "Christian" without understanding more than a few sentences about the cultures and the gods and the times. He misses the religious significance of just about everything.

A much better page to study is www.religioustolerance.org...

On a suface level, you can try real hard and blend all the world's religions into one (it comes out to be something like "all people everywhere and at all times worshipped a Being Of Power.") You can even generalize some of the philosophies ("Being Nice to each other is the best way to behave.")

The minute you get more specific than that, it all falls apart.


[edit on 5-12-2004 by Byrd]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Hey I been to that link like 9 months ago and always wonder what it was called thanks for posting it, now I can use it as a refrence...



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
To recap the gospel for those believers in the resurrection:


Matt: Magdelena and the other Mary was first to the sepulchre
Mark: Magdelena, Mary and Salome were first to the sepulchre.
Luke: The “they" first to the sepulchre are identified later as Magdelena, Joanna, Mary and other women.
John: Magdelena only is identified as first to the sepulchre.

Matt. Magdelena was told to tell the disciples, who then they saw him after her.
Mark. After Magdelena saw him, he then appeared unto the ELEVEN
Luke. After the women told them what transpired, Peter ran to the sepulchre..
John: Magdelena told Peter and Jesus’ favourite disciple (unnamed), the two then raced to the sepulchre, Peter lost and was third to the site.


Matt; There were ELEVEN disciples.
Mark: afterward he appeared unto the ELEVEN
Luke: The women told the ELEVEN disciples.
John: No mention of the number, but Jesus appeared to them twice.

And now to examine what the false prophet, the creator of the church, Paul had to say about the event;

1Cor 15:4:7 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the TWELVE : after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once:…

And that is the height of the nonsense, but not the epitome, spouted as to the resurrection. No two of these of the major five other than reporting Magdelena, can manage a synchronised graveside visitation diary. Did he appear to Peter, the apostle whom he loved, or the Eleven or was it TWELVE, first? And where on God’s earth did Paul come up with the 500? for according to Mark and Luke, he ascended into Heaven after meeting with the eleven. I'll get back to this after.

For those who know their scriptures, Jesus was crucified on a Friday, and rose on the day after the Sabbath which makes that a Sunday, some time around dawn, that makes his rise on the third day as follows: Friday the day of his death as day one, Saturday day two, Sunday day three. The semantics of 72 hours I’ll forego for now. It is this little fairy tale concocted by ignorant church fathers which makes this a farce. Counting the nights then through which he was dead leaves us with Friday and Saturday for a grand total of two, and the days also for a total of one, if generous. Two nights and two days being as liberal with this as possible, does not his prediction make as proffered in Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It falls shy one whole night and one whole day. Those words do not jive with Luke 9:22: …the son of man must suffer many things…and be slain and be raised on the third day. Therefore one must conclude, that either the gospels as we know them is malarkey, or that Jesus was confused as to how many nights he would spend in the bowels of the earth, or that he was not the son of man, or that there were at least two sons of man.

But then again, we have no word in the scriptures of the four that he descended anywhere, whether that is hell or the heart of the earth, since that too is just another fable created by the church, which makes the resurrection as we know it, a non event.

And all of that, and much more as already previously provided, makes the Bible itself an incriminating witness to its own false and incorrect reporting.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
To recap the gospel for those believers in the resurrection:


Matt: Magdelena and the other Mary was first to the sepulchre
Mark: Magdelena, Mary and Salome were first to the sepulchre.
Luke: The “they" first to the sepulchre are identified later as Magdelena, Joanna, Mary and other women.
John: Magdelena only is identified as first to the sepulchre.

Matt. Magdelena was told to tell the disciples, who then they saw him after her.
Mark. After Magdelena saw him, he then appeared unto the ELEVEN
Luke. After the women told them what transpired, Peter ran to the sepulchre..
John: Magdelena told Peter and Jesus’ favourite disciple (unnamed), the two then raced to the sepulchre, Peter lost and was third to the site.


Matt; There were ELEVEN disciples.
Mark: afterward he appeared unto the ELEVEN
Luke: The women told the ELEVEN disciples.
John: No mention of the number, but Jesus appeared to them twice.

And now to examine what the false prophet, the creator of the church, Paul had to say about the event;

1Cor 15:4:7 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the TWELVE : after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once:…

And that is the height of the nonsense, but not the epitome, spouted as to the resurrection. No two of these of the major five other than reporting Magdelena, can manage a synchronised graveside visitation diary. Did he appear to Peter, the apostle whom he loved, or the Eleven or was it TWELVE, first? And where on God’s earth did Paul come up with the 500? for according to Mark and Luke, he ascended into Heaven after meeting with the eleven. I'll get back to this after.


the bible is written with eastern cultural tendencies. events are spoken of and detailed with high regard to subject matter, even causing detriment to our ability to understand due to our western need to think chronologically. if i was dying, and my family came to my bedside to comfort me that day and then my friends also came to comfort me the following day, and then an old acquaintance came a week later hoping to revive our old relationship in order to "get my golf clubs when i die" . . . i would use my friends as a comparison since they are not blood related, and say "leave me you selfish person! my friends came to me first with no regard for their own gain, and you come late with intent to obtain!?" were my friends literally first? or simply first in regards to the subject? further, if someone was to begin to talk about the devotion my family has for me, they might bring up my girlfriend having been by my side since the moment i was admitted to the hospital. but wait! that can't be since i didn't mention her yet!



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I have heard the voive of God, and I have seen His ability to take direct action on behalf of His children


Proof?


No, Masterp, it is not a "known fact" to historians that Judaism originated from Zoroastrianism. Some may believe that to be the case, but, as you would tell me about my faith, a believe does not make a fact.


No, it is true. The biblical story of Abraham, exodus etc has lots of similarities with the stories of Zoroastrianism.

That does not mean your religion (in this case, Christianity) is not a good religion.

I am a Christian too, but I have filtered out all the bull#. I don't know if there is a God, but the chances of a God existing is 50%. But religions are illogical, and I am sure if there is God, he does not want us to think illogically.

Until you present us with some proof of you having spoken to God, you will be considered (at least!) another lying foundamentalist.

There are millions of people that claim that have proof about their religion, yet none can produce evidence.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   
You ask for proof? I have none for you. I never used my experience to validate an argument, only to say that I would be examining your post from that point of view. I thought the purpose of these threads was to get all points of view to get the best information possible. Granted as I stated before my post was supposed to be light hearted and came out as less then such and for that I apologize. However, the point of view I come from is not something I would use to argue a point because it is my experience. It only applies to me and while in certain situations its appropriate to share it, its only use in a discussion is to convey where I'm coming from. My experience happened and is all the proof I will ever need, but such things are intensely personal and not meant to sway others as to whether there is or is not a God. You want proof, ask for it genuinely without malice in your heart and you will receive your proof WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. Now you may do your best to poke my beliefs full of holes by quoting doctrines and mis-translations and whatever you want. Doctrine is a creation of man and has no bearing on my relationship with God. If you truely know Him, and you try to live a good life, He's usually pretty good at helping you figure out what is right and what is wrong. I will argue doctrine from a scholary point with you all day long because its fun and interesting to figure out what really did happen, but my foundation will never change.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Dasher, I read your post and initially thought it was in jest. Then I decided you were serious, as you sought to create a desperate apology for the accounting of the event.

I truly don’t care what apology you wish to give the gospels. They are supposedly the word by which those who believe in Christ are told is truth. Such an important and intrinsically imperative accounting of the life of the “saviour’ is not only expected to be without flaw, it is supposed to be without question, without flaw. Therefore, there can be no procrastination or excuse, for such would not survive the logic of today, nor the court of law. And fundamentally, for the god, his son, and his disciples the inconsistencies are inexcusable, the narratives are at odds, and there is no denying that. If you checked into a hotel for a three night stay and they tossed you out on the morning of what is to be the third night, would you honestly claimed to have spent three night there? And I don’t care if the bible is western or not, that is the height of apologetic nonsense. These events are supposedly the deeds of the creator of the universe, I really don’t think a creator would give a care about western hemisphere versus eastern or even Andromedan concept for that matter. But you are exactly right, there is a world outside America, and I am outside America, what on earth makes you put forward such a narrow statement, unless you only think inside America?

Now try again with your Thursday night gaffe, you virtually stand alone in a field devoid of theologians on any side of religion when it comes to backing that non sequitor of an analogy. The Jewish Sabbath begins Friday at sundown and concludes on Saturday, not Sunday, but Saturday.

Matt “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdelene…

MarkAnd when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdelene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week…

Luke: And behold there, there was a man named Joseph, a counselor; and he was a good man and a just: he was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto pilate and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on….

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre….

JohnAnd it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he said unto the Jews, Behold your King!..then delivered he him therefore unto them…

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away….Then took they the body of Jesus…

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark…


I must admit that this is a first, a gentile declaring that the Sabbath starts on a Thursday at any hour of that day. The church has done a mighty fine job on your mind.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Dasher, I read your post and initially thought it was in jest. Then I decided you were serious, as you sought to create a desperate apology for the accounting of the event.

I truly don’t care what apology you wish to give the gospels. They are supposedly the word by which those who believe in Christ are told is truth. Such an important and intrinsically imperative accounting of the life of the “saviour’ is not only expected to be without flaw, it is supposed to be without question, without flaw. Therefore, there can be no procrastination or excuse, for such would not survive the logic of today, nor the court of law. And fundamentally, for the god, his son, and his disciples the inconsistencies are inexcusable, the narratives are at odds, and there is no denying that. If you checked into a hotel for a three night stay and they tossed you out on the morning of what is to be the third night, would you honestly claimed to have spent three night there? And I don’t care if the bible is western or not, that is the height of apologetic nonsense. These events are supposedly the deeds of the creator of the universe, I really don’t think a creator would give a care about western hemisphere versus eastern or even Andromedan concept for that matter. But you are exactly right, there is a world outside America, and I am outside America, what on earth makes you put forward such a narrow statement, unless you only think inside America?

Now try again with your Thursday night gaffe, you virtually stand alone in a field devoid of theologians on any side of religion when it comes to backing that non sequitor of an analogy. The Jewish Sabbath begins Friday at sundown and concludes on Saturday, not Sunday, but Saturday.

Matt “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdelene…

MarkAnd when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdelene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week…

Luke: And behold there, there was a man named Joseph, a counselor; and he was a good man and a just: he was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto pilate and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on….

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre….

JohnAnd it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he said unto the Jews, Behold your King!..then delivered he him therefore unto them…

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away….Then took they the body of Jesus…

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark…



spend less time on packing your post full of cynicism and more time reading/referencing what i wrote and then critically thinking about how each gospel has it's own contextual basis and therefore need for particular information. your dismissal does not make the truth of my statements fail. it simply makes it vanish from your eyes.

re: america - again, you are spending more time being cynical than processing that i stated "american culture" and "western" in reference to that which is corrupt. this ideal is not limited by a border but does pivot on a nation. thusly, my statement is fair and accurate regardless of where you are exactly located since you can be engrossed by "america" without being north of mexico and south of canada. if it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . maybe it's a . . . ?

to fully understand the corruption of western culture, please note that dispensational eschatology nearly dried up in england, but was popularized in america and is now becoming most popular world wide among christians. also, arminian teaching was not popularized until our wonderfully obese culture, in it's infancy, brought it much life.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I must admit that this is a first, a gentile declaring that the Sabbath starts on a Thursday at any hour of that day. The church has done a mighty fine job on your mind.


to further illustrate your lack of effort to understand my post, you have concluded that i stated the sabbath as starting on thursday. i have read my post 4 or 5 times now and can't figure out how you could have possibly come up with that. your cynical statements seem to fall back on themselves as do your theories.

daved



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
What I find really interesting is that there are people out there so threatened by Christianity that they need to go to these lengths to debunk it.

Something to consider: how important is it -- REALLY -- that there are congruences between the Biblical story of Jesus and this diatribe you cite? I am not induced, after reading it, to abandon my faith nor, it appears, are you induced to accept any.

All this does -- REALLY -- is allow somebody to exercise his imagination -- or perhaps vent his spleen -- against a faith system he does not agree with, and give a bunch of cattle the opportunity to ride on his coat-tails.

My advice to you: take NOTHING for granted. Read widely, talk to many people of many faiths, and listen to your heart rather than some jumped up pseudo-intellectual who quotes out of context to make things fit his theory. You are (I assume) a human capable of independent thought. Think independently.

Whether you believe in Jesus or not, take responsibility for your own spirituality because I can guarantee that the true author of the piece you quoted will NOT step up and speak for you on Judgement day.

You may not believe in the afterlife but one thing is certain: if there is and you get it wrong you will have a very, very long time to reflect on the error of the few moments you saved yourself avoiding the truth while here on this earth.

One final point:

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh..." Robert A. Heinlein



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by H0T_Lead
You may not believe in the afterlife but one thing is certain: if there is and you get it wrong you will have a very, very long time to reflect on the error of the few moments you saved yourself avoiding the truth while here on this earth.


Sounds like you're saying we should "play the odds" and believe in Jesus "just in case."

And I wholeheartedly reject your implied assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "avoiding the truth". What we're really doing is
rejecting what you believe to be true.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join