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 Found, nobody want's to know - Could be real deal

page: 4
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: shauny

Ok? That's not really what I asked. You can believe in whatever God you like. That's your prerogative, and I'm not here to convert you to my own set of beliefs. I guess I simply don't understand why you feel this particular bible is of such great significance?

I mean, even if it were proven to be authentic, it still dates from 500 years after the events it's supposedly detailing. There are much much older documents that all contradict it, while agreeing on certain specific details (in this case that Jesus was crucified).


None of the much older documents were written by anyone who was alive to witness the described events, either. I'd say it's a toss up.




posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny

The unreliable forged books nowadays is the new testament. Common sense tells me anything closer to the source (200 to 300 years after Jesus) is the most reliable book!
edit on 3-2-2015 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Paul was alive during Christ's lifetime, and he mentions in his writings meeting with Peter personally. Some of Paul's earliest writings can be dated to around 50AD (not even 20 years after the crucifixion). Surely Peter would have mentioned it to Paul if Jesus had not actually been crucified? Further, Tacitus (a roman historian and senator) writing in 116 AD, mentions the crucifixion and even goes so far as to mention Pilate, further corroborating the New Testament narrative. Archaeological discoveries in the 60's further proved Pilate's existence. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

No, I don't think you can claim it's a toss up when all the earliest writings agree that Jesus was crucified, including non christian sources like Tacitus and Josephus.

Tacitus:


"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".


Josephus:


"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."


So not only do you have the original gospels which confirm the crucifixion, but Paul's epistles, 2 non Christian historians, and a number of gnostic gospels written later.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I don't feel 'this particular bible is of such great significance'
I write, 20/30 articles a day, this was one from a few months back.
I thought I would throw it in here as it's been talked to death on my own site.

Just asking a question.
Sadly nobody in this thread, me included can say this bible or any bible is real.
We can make educated assumptions and guess. But in reality, nobody will ever know.

Unless it is all real and I die and burn for ever and ever

....Knowing all along 'God loved me'

Respect..



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny




A Bible which is reported to be at least 1500 years old was discovered in Turkey and inside it there is a Gospel of Barnabas.


Sounds like a Gnostic Bible then. Same part of the world where the Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus MSS came from.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: shauny

The unreliable forged books nowadays is the new testament. Common sense tells me anything closer to the source (200 to 300 years after Jesus) is the most reliable book!


"Older is better" is a fallacy. Think of antiques, which items from antiquity stand the best chance of lasting the test of time?

A: The ones rarely used over time. The ones being heavily used in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries wore out in a decade or two and copies and more copies had to be made.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Hey Tangerine.

Well of course anything I write when expressing my opinion are based on my beliefs. That goes without saying. I'm talking from the viewpoint as a Christian and how the Christian community views who inspired the Bible. The whole point of me saying that I can't prove Jesus existed would lead anyone with common sense to realize that it goes without saying that I also can't prove the Holy Spirit exists. So you can say whatever you wish to push the issue more but we'd just be going in circles.

And in response to your second paragraph of suggesting I use words like, "I believe" or "in my opinion" perhaps if you go back to my very first answer. You might have missed it. I actually was bright enough to use it when saying that this newly discovered Bible is fake. Here you go: In my opinion this is nothing but a fake.

If I ever claim something as fact I would actually say so and then back it up. In this case it's a conversation of one believer to whoever else I'm addressing my comments to.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   


If this book is real then it changes religion


That statement is absurd, in the same way that the 232 results found from an Amazon search for 'moon landing hoax', or the existence of the Flat Earth Society, or Holocaust deniers don't AUTOMATICALLY change or invalidate those events. It's worthy of investigation, as frankly, any sufficiently old text is regardless of topic, but it hardly erases Christian belief in Jesus as the son of God.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny

Hi Shauny - Good for you for being open minded and wanting to learn about other cultures. This world is so huge and amazing and filled with people of such variety and differences - it really is fascinating.

No, no offence taken
Don't you worry about that.

I'm going to say this from the viewpoint of a Christian and make clear that this is my personal belief, my opinion that when I looked at it my gut just went "ugh". As a Christian we are filled with the Holy Spirit and he is our comforter, our helper. He is our inner guide. I'm not saying I hear his voice or have some sort of invisible friend hanging around but he just makes me feel that twinge in my gut when something isn't right. And we are to turn to him for discernment. I also don't sit here and ask him to give me gut reactions to what the weather will be like or what will come my way during the day. It's much the same as our sixth sense, that's the easiest way to explain it. So yeah, I looked at it and it immediately felt wrong.

BUT like you I like to investigate and keep an open mind. I think the worst thing any Christian can do is sit back and allow another human being to tell us what the think and believe. God is always revealing more of the Bible to us as he sees fit and so I know it's not natural for us to sit in a closed box accepting whatever some man made organization has deemed to be the truth. And so I went online and tried to find something about it. The fact that it's in a book shape seems wrong, the fact that it's written on leather and the gold ink. These weren't the way back then. Parchment, vellum was used. Scrolls.

And as a believer the fact that it denied Jesus dying on the cross - that did it for me. Here we have ancient books that all say the same thing and have been assembled into one whole book, the Bible. Now there is one random book that denies the very reason Jesus was on earth? I discount it on those very reasons. I don't know much about the Muslim faith but even their beliefs are twisted in this book. So here is this random book in a very ancient and lovely package. Something is wrong with it.

So again that's just my take on it. Satan is working overtime to trick us humans. Which is another reason why we have the Holy Spirit living within us. So that we are empowered against the devil. The devil has been trying since before Jesus was born to discredit God and to destroy God's loved people. This is the perfect way to do so. There are Pastors leading churches these days that don't even believe in God anymore. Christians all over the world are struggling with their faith. This is a perfect tool to cause confusion among such people. And all the masses that are not believers can just rest easy knowing they haven't been fooled and now have "evidence" that Christianity is a bunch of bunk.

So that's why. No offence either.

What part of Scotland are you in? I had a dear, dear friend that came from Dumfries. One day I hope to see Scotland!

edit on 3/2/15 by ccseagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: sglewis

NASA, When talking about going to Mars (Example here) said
"We have to find a way to get past the Van Allen belts"
Now as we know this is between us and the moon.
So NASA called into question the moon landing with an off the cuff comment.

It is what it is..Check my friend:
NASA Can't get past Van Allen Belts



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Your own argument is plain fallacy. Your response to my argument was irrelevant. Sweet talks, sounding words are mere deceptive. Better and reliable are two different thing (meanings).

Let me say it again in plain English:

Anything closer to the source (200 to 300 years after Jesus) is the most reliable book!

Common sense is not common anymore.


edit on 3-2-2015 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I suspect the most reliable scrolls we have are the Nag Hmmadi ones because they haven't been decided for us by the early church fathers who had their own political agenda, that of recognition and authority given to themn by the emporer.

From those documents we learn that Christ was a gnostic and didn't consider himself to be 'the son of god' he called himself 'the son of man'. He also stated that any man who followed the 'law' he would call brother.

I doubt we will ever have the truth about the crucifixion, men going straight up to heaven in front of witnesses or whatever, because its so long ago and it unfortunately was not documented by the Romans or we don't have their documentation concerning Jesus.

Were he to have been who the catholics say he was and as the early church fathers decided to tell the world he was, I cant see any reason for his record to have been removed. Its because there is no record - yet we know the romans were meticulous on their records and letters to each other, that its hard to brush under mere 'blind faith' the version of christ the catholics have impressed onto their followers and still fight tooth and claw to ensure the papal seat and of course papal assets, bank and good living for those who love to wear frocks. Think about it, those men have enjoyed a wonderful, carefree and lazy lifestyle at the cost to the poor who pitifully maintained them.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Did you even bother to read any of the other replies to this thread?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ccseagull

Thank you for being really cool. I totally respect you and religion and your relationship with God and in the manner you do so. We as a species have to learn to respect others ideologies, beliefs, likes, thoughts and opinions.
When we don't do that, trouble happens. For me organised religion does cause issues in our World.
If the World had more like your good self, a person with an amazing relationship with God but also open minded, says a lot about you as a person and I totally respect that, really I do.

As for Scotland I live in the Capital City, Edinburgh. I used to live overlooking The Scottish Parliament (Hollyrood) and Hollyrood Palace where the Queen comes for the odd visit here and there. As a kid (I am 40 now) we used to line the streets to wave at the Queen, these days she comes and goes and nobody cares. Royalty is really low in Scotland. We wanted, as you will know, to free Scotland from the UK. We lost the Referendum by 400,000 votes. We are "half free" but I think with the SNP (Scottish National Party) being the 3rd biggest in the UK and looking likely to have a huge SNP seat in this year's UK General Elections we are close to freeing ourselves. The no voters voted no on a promise of Home Rule, it was a lie, so no voters want another referendum, well some do.

Here is where I be:










posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny

I would love for evidence to be found to support the fact modern christians are a bunch of filthy #ing liars, deceived by their own "modernized twisted, bull# religion." How ever, If I know modern christianity they will do everything in their power to make sure their religion stays how it is and denounce anything that challenges it as fake, or devil misdirectionary wizardry.

I believe christianity today is a mere ghost of what it started as. It's message is the opposite of what it started as, and I would love for judas to have died on the cross, meaning modern worship to the idle of the man on the cross would turn out to be the opposite of christianity. That Judas was in fact the one who died and they were not worshiping christ but in fact everything that tried to destroy what he stood for.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Hijinx




I would love for evidence to be found to support the fact modern christians are a bunch of filthy #ing liars, deceived by their own "modernized twisted, bull# religion." How ever, If I know modern christianity they will do everything in their power to make sure their religion stays how it is and denounce anything that challenges it as fake, or devil misdirectionary wizardry.


Wow. Such vitriol. Tell us how you really feel?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ccseagull
a reply to: shauny

This has been circulating since it was found in 2012.

It contradicts Christianity as well as Islam. In fact what I was able to see is a lot of thinking that it's a tool to promote Islam (no offence to such members, I'm simply restating what I kept coming across). And the Vatican has called it a hoax, I just went online and from what I can see is enough to prove that it's not the written word of God (my personal conclusion).
The Bible is the inspired word of God by the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't change my viewpoint of the Bible. When you look at James, Matthew, Luke and John these are 4 separate books by 4 separate writers and the word matches up with each other. And if you look at the Bible as a whole the stories line up.

In my opinion this is nothing but a fake. As well Satan is busy copying God in his every moments and why wouldn't he twist the words of God by having someone mess with the Bible. What a great way to create doubt and division in believers and show non believers that the Bible is nothing but messed up stories. What a great way for Satan to say Jesus was a nobody who wasn't the son of God and we don't have to believe him.





Amen! Very well said.

OP, a red flag should have gone up right away when you read that the Vatican wanted to get their hands on it.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph


Yes I have read though this thread and it is about people not wanting to know this newly found bible because it rocks the foundations of christianity because it claims christ didnt die for our sins and then rise up from the dead. So its a bit of a shocker. But one can't get past the fact there is no reference yet found by anyone who even claims he existed except for vested interest christian ones.

I know you mention Tacitus the roman as a source about christ's existence, but for me its exactly the point I made in my earlier thread you seem to want to dismiss. Tacitus was not there as an eye witness. He relied on hearsay so he did not know whether christ was crucified. He was the govenor of Britain so not even near Jerusalem; yet people will cling to any reference they can to hold the catholic version of christianity in place.

The accepted biblical story of christ tells of a man fulfilling prophesy throughout his public life about the role of the messiah and when you read the gospels you see him fulfilling meticulously every detail of prophesy. Now suddenly we have a gospel that doesnt fit prophesy or worse, the catholic story. suddenly we have a man who didn't die for our sins but simply flew up to heaven whilst Judas got himself crucified. I go back to the Nag Hammadi and the gnostics because it was the catholic church fathers that delibertely destroyed all traces of gnosticism and their churches. However those documents didn[t get the catholic censorship and rewriting neither were they held, like the Dead Sea Scrolls by the catholic priests - several of whom lost their faith after translating the scrolls. Perhaps people should wonder why?

I separate out the spiritual side of my nature from all the desert religions, although I had the religious dogma thrust down my throat and even believed it until suddenly as a 6 year old I questioned how did they get rhinos onto the ark with all the other animals and carry enough feed for them all - because I couldn't see it happening even at that age. After getting the ruler and over the years I have been interested in what we have been taught as kids during our formative years about dogma - so we don't question things like the physical side of the ascension - which christ if he were the son of god would have probably been able to carry out, but were he the son of 'man, unless he was winched up into the heavens I doubt he flew, so I doubt altogether the tales which…. "On the third day he rose" according to the bible either the right bible or the wrong bible. People will believe what they want, they always do, but this bible is actually a big issue if it is authentic and I bet the papacy want to destroy it.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny

Oh you are too sweet. But I give credit to Jesus who is my everything. I sound like a freak but it's a love that guides me and empowers me and frees me. Love truly is the key to everything. Jesus loved everyone, all sinners and the worst of the worst. He is my role model.

I have watched so many shows on Eidinburg, had a friend from Canada who went to University there, beautiful and fascinating place. I followed the vote about Scotland becoming independent. What a moment in history! On one hand I wanted to see Scotland become independent and raise up to be her own nation, to be what it could have been all this time - on the other hand there is so much to lose by separating. I was on the edge of my seat that day!

Thank you so much for the map. Now I'll just put those coordinates into my thingamajig and zoom in on your kitchen window... just a sec...



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Your own argument is plain fallacy. Your response to my argument was irrelevant. Sweet talks, sounding words are mere deceptive. Better and reliable are two different thing (meanings).

Let me say it again in plain English:

Anything closer to the source (200 to 300 years after Jesus) is the most reliable book!

Common sense is not common anymore.



That may seem to be common sense but it's not necessarily true. An altered version created 100 years after the original is not more accurate* than a carefully copied version created 500 years after the original.
*By accurate I mean true to the original. If the original is not accurate no later copy or translation of it will be accurate.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join