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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

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?.

No nit picking here. I was simply pointing out the fact.It is written in the book of Genesis very clearly Abraham's sons were Ishmael and Issac. It also is very absent from any book of the old testimony that Ishmael has anything to do with Islam.The Muslims made that up.You are also free to make up whatever you want however it will most likely contradict the truth.
edit on 29-12-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

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?.


No nit picking here. I was simply pointing out the fact.It is written in the book of Genesis very clearly Abraham's sons were Ishmael and Issac. It also is very absent from any book of the old testimony that Ishmael has anything to do with Islam.The Muslims made that up.You are also free to make up whatever you want however it will most likely contradict the truth.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
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()

Paul is the Hebrew of Hebrews? or Jesus? Jesus was a gnostic not a Christian; evidently Paul didn't know his place as a Jew; (thought outside the box and invented Christianity by accident in contrast to his heritage). Do Jews see Paul as a traitor (as the inventor of Christianity) more so than Jesus, a gnostic Essene (with a darn good message) that unfortunately became its figurehead?
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60


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.

Sorry about that previous post. Try the following source - It is well worth the read --
www.hebrew4christians.com...www.hebrew4christians.com... ew.html



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Seede
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()

Paul is the Hebrew of Hebrews? or Jesus? Jesus was a gnostic not a Christian; evidently Paul didn't know his place as a Jew; (thought outside the box and invented Christianity by accident in contrast to his heritage). Do Jews see Paul as a traitor (as the inventor of Christianity) more so than Jesus, a gnostic Essene (with a darn good message) that unfortunately became its figurehead?


VH

Yahoshua was no more a Gnostic/Essene than he was a Christian.Reading between the lines will only make you more crosseyed.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
originally posted by: Rex282
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeingoriginally posted by: Rex282


Rex282: No nit picking here. I was simply pointing out the fact.It is written in the book of Genesis very clearly Abraham's sons were Ishmael and Issac. It also is very absent from any book of the old testimony that Ishmael has anything to do with Islam.The Muslims made that up.You are also free to make up whatever you want however it will most likely contradict the truth.

Yes I can author any made up fakery I like (there are many examples out there to learn specific theological mine field tactics); confuse the human. My truth is not YOUR TRUTH (so we will differ/a contradiction as you say) however; if we want to go the way of being infantile my truth is BETTER than yours. IMHO
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing




My truth is not YOUR TRUTH (so we will differ/a contradiction as you say) however; my truth is BETTER than yours.


Relativist Fallacy



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282




VH Yahoshua was no more a Gnostic/Essene than he was a Christian.Reading between the lines will only make you more crosseyed.


Correct, because "Christian" simply means "little Christs/Christlike", He is the only Christ.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: jmdewey60
_javascript:hyperlink()


VHB: Paul is the Hebrew of Hebrews? or Jesus? Jesus was a gnostic not a Christian; evidently Paul didn't know his place as a Jew; (thought outside the box and invented Christianity by accident in contrast to his heritage). Do Jews see Paul as a traitor (as the inventor of Christianity) more so than Jesus, a gnostic Essene (with a darn good message) that unfortunately became its figurehead?


Rex282: Yahoshua was no more a Gnostic/Essene than he was a Christian.Reading between the lines will only make you more crosseyed.

Not at all; Eons of observing. I have this one down. If not a Gnostic or a Christian; how would you describe the Man/Master Jesus and do it without using any ministry (and that means no scripture or conjecture from others); from your heart to mine tell me.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing




If not a Gnostic or a Christian; how would you describe the Man/Master Jesus and do it without using any ministry (and that means no scripture or conjecture from others); from your heart to mine tell me.


Loaded question. The gospels claim to be historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. So they can be used as historical documents for that purpose alone. You can reject the metaphysical aspects if you want though, because that falls outside of science and is religion.



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



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: vethumanbeing




My truth is not YOUR TRUTH (so we will differ/a contradiction as you say) however; my truth is BETTER than yours.


Relativist Fallacy

Can you be more plain speaking (shorten those two words into one significant) or expand your concept.
I am not a Relativist, more a diminuative/expansionist that is discriminating. Fallacy? probably as far as deaf ears are concerned.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Okay, the link was very concise, apparently you never looked at it. Here are the brass tacks:


"True for you, but not true for me" = relativist fallacy. Objective truth is still the truth even if nobody believes it.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

Okay, the link was very concise, apparently you never looked at it. Here are the brass tacks:

"True for you, but not true for me" = relativist fallacy. Objective truth is still the truth even if nobody believes it.


You warned it was dangerous; hate any abyss peering (try studying the Daath Sephiroth). Real Objective truth would be that which is observed by your higher enlightened self as witness to ONLY (untainted by your conscious ego). You are telling me there is no hope (belief systems are designed to confuse). All true none true. I prefer my location spiritually, I have no belief systems but am open to all in contemplation. Not sure embracing a Dogma is the answer (quick fix band aid to a long term loss of identity).
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I'm talking Logic and Philosophy, Plato if you will. There is no such thing as something that is objective truth for one person and not truth for another. To claim there is is a fallacy.

Example, hydrogen and oxygen combining to make water for one person and combining to make cat food for someone else. (very clumsy example, but you get the gist of it.)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing


VHB:
If not a Gnostic or a Christian; how would you describe the Man/Master Jesus and do it without using any ministry (and that means no scripture or conjecture from others); from your heart to mine tell me.



NOTurTypical: Loaded question. The gospels claim to be historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. So they can be used as historical documents for that purpose alone. You can reject the metaphysical aspects if you want though, because that falls outside of science and is religion.


I don't reject anything. I wish Hermes and Plato were alive and living in that region at that time to write commentaries regarding the political/religious dynamics. I thought what falls outside of science is "majick". Science is closer to defining a God being than religion is.
edit on 29-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I only said you (or anyone else) can deny the metaphysical aspects of the gospels 'if you want to' (not that you did per se), but since they claim to be historical accounts those claims can be used to determine historical accuracy. So if you disallow then at the onset then ask someone to proves something without using them for that specific purpose that would be a loaded question in your favor. That is why there are Atheist and Agnostic historians who don't deny a historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, while denying the miracles attributed to Him and the resurrection.




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



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

I only said you (or anyone else) can deny the metaphysical aspects of the gospels 'if you want to' (not that you did per se), but since they claim to be historical accounts those claims can be used to determine historical accuracy. So if you disallow then at the onset then ask someone to proves something without using them for that specific purpose that would be a loaded question in your favor. That is why there are Atheist and Agnostic historians who don't deny a historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, while denying the miracles attributed to Him and the resurrection.

I know the gospels are magical (supposed to be poetic so as to reach as many readers as possible; reason for the obtuseness). I have no problem with this or understanding why written as. You did not answer my question and I was direct (no funny hijinks involved). Their are Atheists because they have a belief system in place that directly opposes the thing that threatens them (FEAR NOT GOOD). Agnostics at least can say "I honestly do not know". A Gnostic on the other hand has no need for a belief system at all as are in knowingness of the truth as it resonates within them. Not sure about any evidence existing proving Jesus physically walked this earth, but as a Myth, holds strong (myths are based in truth right? even if created by Coca-Cola "santa clause". Can you explain to me why God doesn't just show up and say "look, people, I exist" (because he a binary information gathering entity) and we are its apostles.


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



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I invite you to visit the following web page
Do you have some other way to link to it because it is not working for me.
OK, I just noticed that you re-did the link in another post.

The web site is obviously biased with an apparent agenda to get Christians to think that Hebrew is the "holy" language.
They are Sacred Language proponents.

I doubt that Hebrew even even existed before the Babylonian Captivity, and I think that it was invented specifically to construct what would pass as a holy book to convince the Persians of the legitimacy of the local deity of Zion as being a "Great God".

The cold, hard reality is that the only example of biblical Hebrew literature is the Bible itself.
The web page author is trying to present the idea that the rabbinic Hebrew of the Talmud, that did not even exist until after 70 AD, was somehow a spoken language in the general Jewish population.
It is preposterous, and I don't know why someone would promote it unless they are obsessed with the idea of making a "sacred language" even if it means lying to get it done.
edit on 30-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Seede

I invite you to visit the following web page
Do you have some other way to link to it because it is not working for me.
OK, I just noticed that you re-did the link in another post.

The web site is obviously biased with an apparent agenda to get Christians to think that Hebrew is the "holy" language.
They are Sacred Language proponents.

I doubt that Hebrew even even existed before the Babylonian Captivity, and I think that it was invented specifically to construct what would pass as a holy book to convince the Persians of the legitimacy of the local deity of Zion as being a "Great God".

The cold, hard reality is that the only example of biblical Hebrew literature is the Bible itself.
The web page author is trying to present the idea that the rabbinic Hebrew of the Talmud, that did not even exist until after 70 AD, was somehow a spoken language in the general Jewish population.
It is preposterous, and I don't know why someone would promote it unless they are obsessed with the idea of making a "sacred language" even if it means lying to get it done.

There is the problem of the qabala, and the tarot and the number factors; qabala tree of life is of Egyptian origin and that knowledge was stolen by Moses. Sacred language in number form absorbed as their own. So much of what is Hebreic was originally Egyptian (never enslaved). Moses was a mole. The hebrews are 4th dimensional annunaki reincarnates, the Egyptians were/are 6th dimensional Sirians (not of the slave ownership mentality, a very giving and loving people; they welcomed this race to protect NOT ENSLAVE). History needs a re-write. The Egyptians of that time period knew how to soften/change the molecular components of stone; build the pyramids (cutting and lifting the stones) using sound.
edit on 30-12-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

. . . they welcomed this race to protect NOT ENSLAVE . . .
I don't think that there really was a race, and even in Exodus, there was a lot of Egyptians who followed the Israelites, so there wasn't really a pure blood to start with.
I think what there was were Canaanites, which just means the people who lived in the Land of Canaan, but that doesn't look good if you are trying to make a case for why there should be granted to Jerusalem a status of a national capital (by the Persians) if there isn't an actual nation. So they invented a nation that was supposed to be all related by blood, but the actual demographic reality is that it was a mixture caused my numerous migrations of different ethnic groups who left remnants behind to join in the general population of the countryside.

The Egyptians of that time period knew how to soften/change the molecular components of stone
Or they just had a good method of making a type of poured concrete that looks just like it was quarried and shaped solid stone.

edit on 31-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join