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.

 

Jesus; an Essene (Paul interpreted blasphomy) would not be known as Christians; instead Gnostics

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

True enough, i'll give you that... After a man sees the evidence first hand...

Though I don't understand why he would doubt in the first place with all that he had already seen...

None the less, peter is not the issue... I have very little issue with him...

John gives subtle hints about Paul in his letters revolving around who is actually a follower and who is a fraud...

Perhaps you might want to look into those letters a little deeper...

read Galatians 2 as well... Paul boldly claims he learned nothing from the "pillars" who were obviously Peter, John, and James... What does John say about that in his letters?





posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

VHB: Jesus was a Gnostic (in understanding existing in the temple of the third awareness). The first one, I am alive and can influence others as my ego allows this , the second, I am alive and can self determinate others to believe in my will imposed. Third; I only have to exist within parameter of others to change others to a positive nature/state of being (walk among them). Gnosis is a state of awareness, (the truth). This is a westernized version.


Jesus was a Gnostic (in understanding existing in the temple of the third awareness). The first one, I am alive and can influence others as my ego allows this , the second, I am alive and can self determinate others to believe in my will imposed. Third; I only have to exist within parameter of others to change others to a positive nature/state of being (walk among them). Gnosis is a state of awareness, (the truth). This is a westernized version.


Akushla99 Excellent VHB.
If it weren't for the generated movement from manufactured general to fractured specific, the lore of the xtian 'tradition' might make sense without the hedged sections of translated/re-interpreted/argued upon framework - that would appal the genuine building inspectors of any credible edifice...Essene (not operating specifically as splintered) would encompass the 'green credential'...the compromise (by whoever(s)) appears like a badly formed brighton flower show exhibit...winning the 'garden most likely' award...

Å99

Best rose exhibited (flower show one year was a purported 'blue rose' ala 'Beauty and Beast" Disney style) at the 'Delmar' horse racing track CA fits that bill; as I step backwards through your post. Someone had to define our miserable existence and make sense of it to US (really? tired of the overlord factorings). You have to have the hedged sections; (that is where the lies live and continues to thrive). You are tested in your ability to 'discriminate' these (tiresome I KNOW, not again!?). Oh the genuine architects; arch angels/ arch ANGLEs (masons) that had no boundries suffering the (building inspectors were free to explore possibilities. I am giving no alocades to the structural engineers of the Standard Oil Building (Chicago) the granite siding falling off (what happened). Those rascally Essenes; what were they thinking running from the LAW; splintered yes and became the foundation for the Templar Knights (those guys were enlightened before their time brilliant) You say 'green' I say Oh, not the Green Man famous. It would be nice the 'framework' was valid structurally and spiritually to be believed as MAYBE the first rung on some ladder to 'heaven". NO ONE IS HOME UP THERE.
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Though I don't understand why he would doubt in the first place with all that he had already seen...


Hell, I don't know! lol Why did Judas trade Him for 30 pieces of silver after all he had seen??? THAT was the head-scratcher. I think Peter was scared he would get stoned to death. He just saw a TON of temple guards arrest Jesus in the garden.




Paul boldly claims he learned nothing from the "pillars" who were obviously Peter, John, and James...


Because he didn't, he says he met with Jesus for a long time learning personally on Sinai, and the Holy Spirit was indweeling him after the events on the road to Damascus.




edit on 29-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

See... a recent idea has come up with the introduction of the gospel of Judas...

Though the text is not as close as the biblical documents to his life, what is said makes sense...

Its known from Matthew that Judas was considered his friend...

Its hard not to consider the possibility that Judas was given a mission straight from Jesus' mouth...

it makes sense only because I see no logic in betraying a man like Jesus... or any man for that matter but Jesus??


Because he didn't, he says he met with Jesus for a long time learning personally on Sinai, and the Holy Spirit was indweeling him after the events on the road to Damascus.


how do you believe this miraculous story when he had nothing but his word... and ALL of the accounts are different?

that combined with the fact that he knew nothing of the man he learned from "for a long time"...
edit on 29-12-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Akragon

although I assume what I said is true still. I know what you believe and I know its flaws. You are like one who takes sleeping aids, wears a blindfold, and lays in his bed at mid-morning.

How can you judge/jury a human being in an open forum you do not know? Akragon is not "LIKE" anyone you know that abuses over the counter sleep aids; but could offer up some tips.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




it makes sense only because I see no logic in betraying a man like Jesus...


Well, remember it was satan who had possessed Judas at that point.




how do you believe this miraculous story when he had nothing but his word...


Same evidence the other apostles had of a convert, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He no longer was hunting them down, but joined and was a faithful believer and apostle. And his miracles, healing, raising from the dead, et cetra. And the attestation of Peter himself in 2 Peter which was his final words before execution, and his letter specifically addressed to warn of false teachers. That's very compelling.




edit on 29-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
originally posted by: AnuTyr
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing
a reply to: AnuTyr
We can break this down. Abraham had two sons, Issac and Jacob. One was responsible for creating Islam the other Judaism. Both are Semitic duo races and what they spawned as brothers together (in unison) their progeny; are "the two hate each other". What does that say about the brothers relationship (THANKS GUYS).



AnuTyr: Do you have any proof for this? Wait.... Is the proof in the bible itself? Do you have any outside sources?
I HAVE NO PROOF justified by no proof as well the organized Dogmatic Religions to suffocate you; reel you in. You take 'Anu' as a name; that could be my fathers name. Jesus was all about this idea, "THINK FOR YOURSELF, GOD EXISTS WITHIN YOU". I thought the proof was in the pudding and yeasts ability to rise at temperature. I have outside sources and can name them (wait, I may have to get releases through their lawyer contacts).


AnuTyr: I don't believe an abraham or an Issac even existed.
Why? Because i think all the characters in the old testament were made up or rather, their named have been made up in order to better fit the cannon which must have a begining middle and end. Problem is the Jews havn't been around for that long at all.

Would it surprise you I am of the same thought or am in agreement of?


Anutyr: Summarians are much older than the Semetic Jews.
Everyone knows that the God El is Yahweh. Not sure who abraham reprisents in Sumaria but probably one of the fathers of the first kings? Who lived for an excess of 10,000s of years? Not that it matters because the person we expect from the bible is not going to be the person in reality if humanity happens to be hanging on a fingernail with only like what 4 of 5 humans left in all of existance?
ehhhh i donno man.

Oh I think you do. Everyone does not know Yahweh and those that think so still have doubt. Why? because it is obtuse and will not reveal itself regardless of a 'Moses Overlay Insert" idea form. The human (plus plus all other animal live forms) live upon the only experimental planet ever constructed. There is no other environment existing within all universes; this IS IT. Why? To test itself; I want to know thyself and you are specimen lab rats.
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Akragon

although I assume what I said is true still. I know what you believe and I know its flaws. You are like one who takes sleeping aids, wears a blindfold, and lays in his bed at mid-morning.

How can you judge/jury a human being in an open forum you do not know? Akragon is not "LIKE" anyone you know that abuses over the counter sleep aids; but could offer up some tips.


Maybe not but he does worship cats.


edit on 29-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Akragon

I let my actions speak for me, and barely my words.

Your actions are your words because you are willfully deceiving people. To me, that is a very negative action.

Yes, I take up indignation in the face of such evil if that's what it takes. St. Paul said to never let the sun go down on your wrath.
I have wrath in me, yes, but I direct it towards evil, rather than act kindly to it and let it stopple the sunlight.

I would say Akragon is the least of your worries if you are one of 'Paul's false devotee's.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing


NOTurTypical: Maybe not but he does worship cats.

So did the Egyptians. You don't have your favorite Meme/Grumpy cat, Jap cat in a box? cat wearing a bread slice? Kim Jong Un calling President Obama a possible Jaguar disguised as a monkey in a Jungle scenario tossing Poo?
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing


VHB:
I cannot regarding Paul; I have no pleasantries to tell as he the (usurper) of Jesus's message (made his own).



NOTurTypical: Then it would have been nice of Peter when writing the epistle that dealt explicitly with false teachers, (2 Peter), to have mentioned Paul as such instead of a beloved brother in Christ.

He should have mentioned himself FIRST as a possible falsifier. Nah, he just did not know what this accident of not understanding direction caused by going to Greece first (the unspoken; first class horrific faith system Catholic Dodgma); Paul was specifically told to go to the ORIENT; NOT THE OCCIDENT to follow Jesus's actual travels during the lost 18 years. This was a huge f up in communication. WHO THE HECK WAS IN CHARGE HERE' the devil?
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Akragon

although I assume what I said is true still. I know what you believe and I know its flaws. You are like one who takes sleeping aids, wears a blindfold, and lays in his bed at mid-morning.

How can you judge/jury a human being in an open forum you do not know? Akragon is not "LIKE" anyone you know that abuses over the counter sleep aids; but could offer up some tips.


Maybe not but he does worship cats.







Actually im more of a dog person.... figure that one out




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: AnuTyr
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing
a reply to: AnuTyr
We can break this down. Abraham had two sons, Issac and Jacob. One was responsible for creating Islam the other Judaism. Both are Semitic duo races and what they spawned as brothers together (in unison) their progeny; are "the two hate each other". What does that say about the brothers relationship (THANKS GUYS).


That is not correct.Abraham sons were Ishmael and Issac .Issac's sons were the twins Esau and Jacob(who became Israel).There is NOTHING in the scripture that says Ishmael is the Father of the Muslims.That is the extrapolation of religious rhetoric...shame on you...



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Jesus didn't write a word in the bible. This was done by James the Just and his other congrigates within Qumran.

It was the *Brother* of Jesus that formed this cult. They were Judeo-Christans, and they took scrolls from Alexandria in order to copy their text and as well add onto their own.

That way they could of made exact Jewish rituals and cerimonies.
That would require a text as remebering all this by memory is extremely difficult and impossible unless all the writers had photographic memories which i highly doubt.



Mnemonic learning was common and most everything had to be committed to memory in biblical times so 'photographic memory' was not unusual.
edit on 29-12-2014 by BushMaster16 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing


NOTurTypical: Maybe not but he does worship cats.

So did the Egyptians. You don't have your favorite Meme/Grumpy cat, Jap cat in a box? cat wearing a bread slice? Kim Jong Un calling President Obama a possible Jaguar disguised as a monkey in a Jungle scenario tossing Poo?


Haha, just poking fun at my friend.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60


OK, there is no such thing as a "mother tongue". All you are doing is making bare assertions. What is being called "Hebrew" in Acts is actually the Judean dialect of Aramaic, associated with the Jews, otherwise known as "Hebrews", and was notable by its not being normally used in general conversation.

The literary use of mother tongue is meant (in this case) to be the first credited Hebrew language. We all realize that languages do evolve and we do understand that there are some evolutions of Hebrew but in this case it is meant that Hebrew was the common Hebrew language before Greek and Aramaic was used by the Hebrews. I won't argue this simply because I am not a linguist but Hebrew is not Aramaic and Hebrew is not Greek. There are also many dialects of Aramaic and at this time (NT period) the Aramaic dialect was Syrian. Naturally it was both the tribes of Judah and Benjamin that went into the Babylonian captivity and as they returned they were referenced as Judean.

All bibles of which I have checked (8 Bibles), translate Acts 21:40, 22:2, and 26:14 as not Greek or Aramaic but Hebrew.
There can be no mistake in these translators understanding that Hebrew means Hebrew and not any dialect of Aramaic. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin before his conversion and I am quite sure that as a rabbi himself that he used the Hebrew language as his first preference. This shows that the multitudes that he spoke to also understood Hebrew. Luke is the accepted author of Acts and Luke must have had a purpose in pointing out that Paul spoke in Hebrew and also Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

www.centuryone.org...
Last night I was commenting on the information in the article that you linked to in your post and it got late, so I am adding now to my earlier post.
The web page with the article makes the claim that the article was originally published in Biblical Archaeological Review. It seems to have been formatted to fit into the magazine (in 1990) as a news item, though it really isn't that kind of discovery, but more like a new way to think of what was already known.
The Title of the articles is "Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion", but once you read a ways, the author says that really it wasn't a church, but a synagogue.
Anyway, it was only through some roundabout searching on the site (I have a subscription to the magazine and its archives) that I was able to find it as it appeared in that issue. I suspect that subsequent to that publication, the editors have lost their enthusiasm for it, and removed it from being a result of a simple search request.
The article's author, Pixner (died in 2002), is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Cenacle. From there you can link to the article on Pixner himself, and then, link again, to the article, en.wikipedia.org...
There is a problem with the thesis supported by Pixner, which is that the layers indicate a Crusader structure built on top of Roman layers. Pixner was trying to say that in an intervening period, Jewish-Christians returned to Jerusalem after the wars and established themselves on Mount Zion. That theory (apparently the only article on it published by Pixner is that one from the earlier link) paints an elaborate fanciful story of how this happens (based mainly by an old map that mistakenly shows two churches at the same spot) but doesn't go with what is found on the ground by actual archaeology.
edit on 29-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

All bibles of which I have checked (8 Bibles), translate Acts 21:40, 22:2, and 26:14 as not Greek or Aramaic but Hebrew.
There can be no mistake in these translators understanding that Hebrew means Hebrew and not any dialect of Aramaic.
The English translations say "Hebrew" simply because that was the word used by whoever wrote Acts, but any commentary will tell you that it does not mean what we think of as Hebrew today, but only meant to imply a distinctively Jewish way of speaking Aramaic.

If you look up the word that Paul uses when he says that he was "a Hebrew of Hebrews", the definition in the lexicon is:
"Definition: a Hebrew, particularly one who speaks Hebrew (Aramaic)."

So it is saying that what was called Hebrew at that time was actually Aramaic.

The literary use of mother tongue is meant (in this case) to be the first credited Hebrew language. We all realize that languages do evolve and we do understand that there are some evolutions of Hebrew but in this case it is meant that Hebrew was the common Hebrew language before Greek and Aramaic was used by the Hebrews.
That would be Canaanite. You could argue that Abraham spoke a version of the Amorite language before he moved to Canaan.
edit on 29-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: AnuTyr
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing
a reply to: AnuTyr
We can break this down. Abraham had two sons, Issac and Jacob. One was responsible for creating Islam the other Judaism. Both are Semitic duo races and what they spawned as brothers together (in unison) their progeny; are "the two hate each other". What does that say about the brothers relationship (THANKS GUYS).


That is not correct.Abraham sons were Ishmael and Issac .Issac's sons were the twins Esau and Jacob(who became Israel).There is NOTHING in the scripture that says Ishmael is the Father of the Muslims.That is the extrapolation of religious rhetoric...shame on you...


Nit pick my understanding of the Old Testament? You are absolutely correct, its all too confusing; add the Koran, New Testament, Taoist teachings, Buddhism, Confucianism, (rhymes with Rosicrucianism) , Nag Hammadi, Hinduism, Maya creation theory, to the mix. Which one is true, any of them if your truth resonates with that theology. Why so many to choose from (you would think there would be just one). Devil; I thought I was helping you; creating more confusion (didn't get that last paycheck; see now why). My personal favorite; all books never in the running/or consideration/and if so were edited from the bible; the Gnostic Texts.
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60


If you look up the word that Paul uses when he says that he was "a Hebrew of Hebrews", the definition in the lexicon is: "Definition: a Hebrew, particularly one who speaks Hebrew (Aramaic)."

I invite you to visit the following web page -- It cannot be copied or pasted but will solve your confusion.

_javascript:hyperlink()



new topics




 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join