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.

 

9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

There's no evidence that the 12 apostles have anything to do astrology. There's no "tax collector" astrological sign and the apostles don't fit the personalities of the 12 signs.




posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
well....I have proof He is and lives.
yep, actual physical dad-gum true proof. I finally got the bank man payed for that 5 acres, after some evil bunch gave me only 60 days to pay it off. Ha....., the first thing I said to my family was ...." watch what Jesus does with this "
then complete focused peace came over the whole scenario.....paid it off with three days to spare.
He is who the basic instructions before leaving earth says He is....

What was the name His mum used to call Him in for lunch..........
they spoke Aramaic....Yasho



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity
I forgot to put this link in my previous post: The Pagan Files. It's a bit lengthy, but well worth the read in my opinion. I think when the bits and pieces of history we have, are all put together with an open mind, there's only one conclusion a person can come to.


edit on 2/28/2015 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified
Thank you! I will read that for sure.

a reply to: arpgme
The lore and the theories are fascinating and thought-provoking, though, particularly when it comes to the 13th sign some astrologers claim exists and then that is tied to Judas.
edit on 2/28/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong


Only need one.

1. He didn't exist as a historical person (a collection of stories and myths cobbled together late in the 1st century).



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The thing that I learned that surprised me the most is that the white image we all know of as Jesus is actually a picture of Cesar Borgia. Talk about the power of a pope as your father and becoming a cardinal at 18.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

He didn't exist as a historical person.

Maybe you could read this and then come back with some reasoning :: Historical Jesus


originally posted by: atzmaz

Cesar Borgia

Who?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

I studied the catholic religion and history my whole life. I even went to a catholic college for a year....after my entire academic life in catholic schools. I am not an expert, but I know what I know.

I didnt attack christianity. Please see that.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified


Ignore the Shakespeare style. Someone must have thought it would be amusing to leave the translation in KJV English.

Great post, but just a literary note: that style's not Shakespearean, nor King James either. It looks to me a good bit later, late seventeenth or eighteenth century perhaps — the period containing Dryden and Pope. It is probably the work of a translator who lived around that time. I went looking round the web for the author's name but couldn't find it.


edit on 28/2/15 by Astyanax because: of style.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Fair enough. I'm sure you know what it's like when several people are pretty much debunking the same thing at the same time. I must've been sat here for 3 or 4 hours just scratching my head at most of it, I started to get a bit cranky after a while. Everything was civil so it's all good.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle


can you tell me what historians do please?

Allow me.

Historians are people who try their best to find out the truth about things that happened and what people did a long time ago. The word 'historia' is Ancient Greek and means 'research'. So what historians do is research.

The things we research are old writings and the remains of vanished communities. Research into vanished communities is a special field, called archaeology, but the results from archaeology feed into history. But most historians concentrate on writings.

When an historian finds something written in an old book, she doesn't automatically accept it as true. She'll look for other writings that corroborate the story or disagree with it; she'll investigate whether the writer of the old book based his account on writings by other authors, and then she'll research who they got their information from, and so on. Down deeper and deeper into the rabbit-hole of evidence, till (if she's lucky) she'll find a reliable eyewitness account, or a sworm courtroom testimony, or an ancient land-deed inscribed on a stone, or some other writing or object that will prove once and for all what really did or did not happen.

Much of the time, we don't get so far down that rabbit-hole. Most of the time the trail of evidence peters out long before you get to the actual event or person you're researching. That's the trouble with those sources you quoted, all of them; they were all writing long after the event, and we don't know where they got their information from.

When the trail goes cold, the historian's job is to analyse whatever evidence is available and give an informed opinion on what might have happened, and how. Since historians are people and people are all different, their opinions are often different also. Thus historical controversies are born. The existence of Jesus is one of those controversies. It is not a matter for believers; it's a matter for historians to argue over. Why should it matter to a believing Christian whether or not there is any evidence for the existence of Jesus? If you believe in him, you believe he existed and that's that, fini.

Anyway, that's not a topic I'm interested in discussing; I just wanted to explain what historians do.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Since historians are people and people are all different, their opinions are often different also. Thus historical controversies are born. The existence of Jesus is one of those controversies. It is not a matter for believers; it's a matter for historians to argue over. Why should it matter to a believing Christian whether or not there is any evidence for the existence of Jesus? If you believe in him, you believe he existed and that's that, fini.

Thank you for that. And spot on with what this topic is an is not about.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Stating that there are factual problems with the assertions, history, philosophy, et. al. of Christianity is not, automatically, an attack on an individual Christian.

Greetings, fellow unbeliever.

I thing we may be experiencing a case of the thing appearing different from different perspectives. You are, of course, right in what you say. However, from the believer's point of view, by questioning the tenets of his belief you are striking at the very root of that which sustains him. I should not wonder if he reacts with defensive hostility.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: atzmaz

Cesare was a bit harder-looking. upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Don't forget about Divine Knowledge, for Gospel is always more true than a book.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

Prefer to rely on empirical knowledge myself. Don't put much faith in gods and miracles and things like that.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Fair enough. But you will, in time.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I think there would be strong evidence to suggest the Vatican would hold knowledge of his descendants as they keep records of everyone that has ever received the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and marriage. If you are unable to provide original proof, your local parish will request a copy straight from the Vatican.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

The time in which Jesus is said to have existed was the time of a great empire that had spread civilization and culture around the Mediterranean basin. It was a civilization and culture of vast attainments, yet it was marred by cruelty and endless, internecine violence, by casual brutalities in peace and war that were made the more sickening by the civilized efficiency with which they were inflicted. Rome was an empire of horrors. People sickened of them, even those who inflicted them. They were experiencing the evolved perfection of thousands of years of ever-more-horrific violence and exploitation, which seemed to grow worse even as civilization itself made the potential benefits of friendly cooperation among people ever more obvious to everybody.

The world needed to change. It needed a new script, a new way of looking at things and doing things. The relative tension of the bounds of selfishness and altruism had to alter; and in that moment a new myth arose, built around the life and teachings of a rather obscure Jewish prophet and religious agitator who had managed to get himself arrested, flogged and ultimately crucified by the authorities.

Embedded in this narrative was a revolutionary new social model: one in which genetically unrelated individuals were encouraged to regard one another not only as potential competitors, to be eliminated or overpowered as soon as possible, but also as potential cooperators, potential — in other words — members of one's own tribe or family. This idea, this social model, slowly but surely effected a transformation in human society and in civilization — a transformation that has not yet ceased. It has given us — notwithstanding the many sanguinary excursions it bears to its dishonour — a better world.

You may choose to see the hand of God in that. I see the proliferation through the culture of a genuinely beneficial meme at a time when circumstances promoted its emergence and spread. Whether Jesus himself was real or made-up isn't important any more; what's important is the concept of loving your neighbour as yourself, and building a new ethics and morality built upon that. Maybe Jesus did exist and even invented the model himself; more likely it was built up by many tongues and pens over a long period of time after his death. Speaking as an atheist who is interested in religion, I don't think it matters. The main thing is, it works, and some of us don't even need the whole Jesus narrative any more. We accept the ethic and understand why it is better. It doesn't bother me that you believe; I think it's okay for people to believe. Probably better for most people in the long run, really, so long as they don't then start burning each others' temples and smashing their idols.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The author of that is from ALTERNET so it's automatically highly suspect. (alternet is notoriously left wing and has an agenda to shake up right wing Christians). She quotes the gnostic readings to come up with the married to Mary Magdalen thing. Gnostic books were excluded as much later written kind of historical fiction work and not reliable at all. Oh, and the Shroud of Turin puts the height of Jesus at about 5'8". (no, the Shroud of Turin has not been proven to be fake. In fact, a lot of evidence points to it's probable authenticity).

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join