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 and Jesus and Jesus and Jesus....i did this cause I love you not to convince you...

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus Christ was a real person that walked the earth I challenge you to explain the conversion of Paul without sounding like a nut..



Again: I will use Paul's words to do so:

“From now on we will regard no one from a human point of view, even though we formerly regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.” (2 Corinthians 5:16)

What do you think Paul's above words meant in relation to your OP? I'm very curious as to why you avoided addressing my comment. I am willing to use Paul's teachings throughout this entire thread because Paul's work actually is confirming that the living breathing Christ never existed.

Who is Immanuel....? More importantly: What is the root meaning of the word "Immanuel"? How about the esoteric meaning of the word Jehovah? Going down that rabbit hole may make any dogmatic fundamentalist take a step back...

When Paul's words are understood the way they were meant to be -- one will be able to empirically weigh it out. You cannot apply or test out your theory because it is just philosophy without ever having the means for application. The Bible is a very magical in a literal sense when one has the eyes to see and ears to hear. Unfortunately to no avail,
that is what Paul was attempting to convey all along.

Until then, we are each entitled to our beliefs. Yet, one must ask: how have your beliefs in the matter served you?

You see my friend, in my personal life and inner circle, when I bring up the real Christ, I mention it with a purpose and then pull them to the side to show them how the insight presented can actually be weighed out with illuminating results that will convert their beliefs to knowing and erase all doubts. That is what Paul and the Meister Eckharts of the world have been attempting. I have a slight advantage in getting them to perk up and listen: I appeal to their ego greed. They seek what I have but become bewildered when I actually mention how to go about it. I have come to the conclusion people will accept the lies when the truth is hard to accept.

Sometimes you just have to lie to their faces and tell them: "Find something you enjoy doing, work hard, and keep striving."

There is a much easier way. The Bible explains it in parables...

You state that you love others and this is why you preach about the existence of man who lived 2000 years ago without offering anything that can actually be applied. I love others as well, and this is why I tell them to replace the word "Jesus" with the word IMAGINATION every time it appears in scripture. Both William Blake and Paul will sigh with relief and smile knowingly if you did so. Also, if you are willing to investigate deeper into what I am conveying here:

Proving me wrong would be the best thing you can ever do for yourself and your loved ones. Why? Because if you go deep enough, you will understand the parable was a hidden code for manifesting at will. Until then, many will continue to Miss the Mark, which btw, was the original meaning of the word sin back in those days. It had nothing to do with morals and everything to do with ignorance of the law....of manifestation.

I leave you with Paul's words:


“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?” Listen to the words carefully: “Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.”


“Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.”

Just to understand your metaphysics concerning the topic: What is your interpretation of Paul's above words?

I have a Bible given to me when I was young that you will never find in any Church or hotel room that spells it out perfectly.

What is the original meaning of the word "Eve"?

All is relevant....

Bless.




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Involutionist
"Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus Christ was a real person that walked the earth..."
Again: I will use Paul's words to do so:
“From now on we will regard no one from a human point of view, even though we formerly regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.” (2 Corinthians 5:16)

You seem to think that "not regarding someone from a human point of view" means "not thinking they are human".
Did you not read the first half of the sentence you quoted- "we will regard NO ONE from a human point of view"?
If the phrase meant what you want it to mean, then Paul would be saying that he doesn't think ANYONE is a real person.

The Greek phrase is KATA SARKA ("according to the flesh"), which Paul always opposes to KATA PNEUMA ("according to the Spirit"). Paul is talking here about his own attitude. He will now allow his attitude to people, including Christ, to be governed by the Spirit, rather than by his own "fleshly" point of view.
If you intend to use Paul a lot, brush up on your knowledge of New Testament Greek and get a good commentary.

edit on 14-4-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




You seem to think that "not regarding someone from a human point of view" means "not thinking they are human".
Did you not read the first half of the sentence you quoted- "we will regard NO ONE from a human point of view"?
If the phrase meant what you want it to mean, then Paul would be saying that he doesn't think ANYONE is a real person.


There is more to it then I alluded to but I don't have the energy or see the point (at the time to elaborate). My last comment above might show where I was going with Paul's words.




The Greek phrase is KATA SARKA ("according to the flesh"), which Paul always opposes to KATA PNEUMA ("according to the Spirit"). Paul is talking here about his own attitude. He will now allow his attitude to people, including Christ, to be governed by the Spirit, rather than by his own "fleshly" point of view.


I agree. He discovered the true Christ within and shed the lie. I mentioned that in my previous comment.




If you intend to use Paul a lot, brush up on your knowledge of New Testament Greek and get a good commentary.


Ok to both. I personally weighed these teachings out and not trying to convert anyone; just using this thread to add my thoughts and entertain myself at the same time. Paul was really trying to show others how to get things with their eyes closed and express the fact that the parables thought of as historical, cosmological, and biographical accounts are actually scripture meant to be played out (realized) within in our minds and depths of our spirit. Nothing is meant to be taken literal in any religious scripture. All is symbolism.

Let's start here:

www.lojsociety.org...









ditby]
edit on 14-4-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




It really isn't a tiny fraction of scholars that find the Tacitus quote as a forgery the very fact that it didn't surface until the 15th century and wasn't quoted even once by scholars who searched for these things to affirm the faith such as Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively who made no mention of the quote.


It really is. The first source you quoted is from D. Murdock also known as Acharya S. Her work has received very negative reviews.

The claim that the Tacitus passage is not in Tacitean style is just false...




and how no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ"


Did you even read the passage man? Tacitus is writing a polemic against Christians. He refers to him as Christ to describe where the Christians received their name...simply saying no imperial document would ever call him Chris is not evidence of any kind.




I personally see the Tacitus quote as a forgery based on the evidence and circumstance around it. That is a position many historians hold as well even those bound to the faith which proves it isn't a one-sided issue.


Name a Tacitean scholar who rejects the passage as authentic. Name one other scholar beside Carrier, that would say the passage is not in tacitus' writing style.

You quote one source that calls it a forgery based on an argument from silence, and a bad argument from silence. Then you post one that simply discuss the "e" and the "i" which I find to be totally irrelevant because the most likely situation if it was an "e" is that it was a spelling mistake.

John Meier states, “despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible."




Robert Van Voorst writes that only a few words in the text are generally disputed, such as Tacitus’ spelling of the word “Crestians” instead of “Christians,” and his naming Pilate as “procurator” instead of the more accurate “prefect.” He writes that on the basis of these a few have claimed that the entire passage is the result of a subsequent Christian editor, but calls this “pure speculation.”(98) The differences are easily reconciled. Moreover, the style of the text definitely belongs to Tacitus. Pagan editors did not express themselves in the Latin that Tacitus uses(99) and a Christian editor would not have had Tacitus call Christianity a “deadly superstition.” Besides all of this, the passage fits well in the context. Tacitus was a Roman Governor and could have had knowledge of past events concerning the Roman Empire. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that Tacitus mentions Jesus as an historical person and His crucifixion by Pilate as an historical event.


Source

You come here using your diction to act as though your here to portray the information honestly. The truth is no serious scholar refutes the authenticity of the passage. The vast majority of scholars do not agree with these fringe historians your pulling out and I would hesitate to call some of them historians.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Involutionist

Disraeli took care of the response for me. I am not even going to give you the time of day unless you present something factual and convincing.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme




He said in Rome 13 that the powers that be are all of God and that to resist will lead to damnation


Quote the verse your referring to...because resisting the government leads to damnation is not said...it says you will bring judgment upon yourself..but it doesn't say that you will be damned???

Romans 13 merely states that God instituted gov't authorities to basically preform what we call the social contract nowadays. You take this as some arbitrary command to just do whatever the gov't says and that is not what is being implied here in anyways. Not only that Paul is basically just elabortaing on what Jesus says to Pilate:

"So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" 11Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

Seems like Jesus and Paul have some parallels here.




Paul also said in Galatians 2:16 that we are justified by believing that Jesus's body was a human sacrifice for sins and not through doing good works.


Um Jesus didn't teach you were justified by works. Neither does the OT. You obviously have lost proper interpretation because you want Paul to be a fake and you want to think you can work your way to heaven. If thats what you think man you are going to have a rude awakening when you move on to the afterlife. Jesus clearly taught that the only way to eternal life was by believing in him and by following him...to say that Paul is making that message up shows me you are just blinding yourself because its obvious what Jesus taught about salvation.





According to Jesus of The Gospels in Matthew 7:21, you go to heaven for being good (doing God's will).



Are you really this blind? "21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"

Notice what the people are claiming to have done to get into heaven...works....and your right Jesus says to do God's will and what does Jesus say when asked what God's will is?

John 6
28Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

You are lost and I can't help you understand. There is no arguing with people who are this subject to confirmation bias.

Not quite sure how you think Paul contradicts matthew 7:12..

Luke 6 doesn't seem to be about salvation...again man you are so far off on your interpretations that I just can't argue...



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Disraeli took care of the response for me. I am not even going to give you the time of day unless you present something factual and convincing.



Well then, I hope s/he responds to me so I can elaborate more about my previous comment. You and Disraeli, however, did not address the other words I quoted by Paul. Do you care to?


“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?”


Listen to the words carefully: “Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified”

Why is Paul questioning the crucifiction story which is a fundamental core belief of Christianity? Again, why did Paul convert...?

Everything is symbolism. The truth is difficult to accept when the lies are all we want to hear. Yet, the truth will set you free.

Btw, what do you consider factual? I am not trying to convince anybody of anything, so we can leave that part out -- this is your thread --- you are the one who is perhaps trying to convince under the guise of love? Your response does not resonate from a place of love. There were many souls of that time that had the same esoteric understanding of scripture that attempted to convey what William Blake, Neville Goddard, Miester Eckhart, and others have done that are met with the same response.

The irony is if there was a real Christ, perhaps it is animosity that caused you to respond the way you did to me is the same attitude of the indoctrinated masses that caused this so called Christ to be crucified. You believe what you have been taught to believe, yet the words are still there waiting to heard and applied.

You ask me to prove it to you and that is not what I am here for, nor was that my intention; I am just going to use Paul's teachings and esoteric Christianity throughout this thread because I find it very poetic to do so.

You need to prove it to yourself instead of to others. What difference does it make to YOU if others do not believe in your version of Christ?

It makes no difference to me. I live a good life because of my beliefs, especially using esoteric Christian understanding to achieve it. There are even those who agree with my understanding of Christ, yet, they have nothing to show for it either. I see both of sides (you and them) as being in the same box.

My life I have created for myself based on my personal application of scripture was entirely for my own doing. My Jesus has served me abundantly very well in this life. If the same can be said for yourself, than that is all that matters.

Now, I will wait for Disraeli, at least that person has the consideration to respond even though it is not their thread. When you have guest over to your house: Do you only thank the ones whose clothing you liked for coming and ignore everyone else?

What would YOUR Jesus say about your animosity driven response to me (btw, the only one from you as well)?

Come meet me half way. If you want to start discussing scripture let's at least begin to understand the language of the times first.

www.lojsociety.org...

"Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?"

The Law will reveal the truth. The latter comes from the lips of priest. Paul knew what he was speaking about. I see him as the symbol for the first awakened human in modern times using the true gospels of Christ with complete understanding. Many have come since him who have the eyes to see and ears to hear.

Click that link above. That link is just the tip of the iceberg...I was told to brush up on my understanding of OT by Disraeli. Personal intimate experiences make that task quite simple.

Bless.




edit on 14-4-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What year did your Jesus die, and how do know?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Name a Tacitean scholar who rejects the passage as authentic. Name one other scholar beside Carrier, that would say the passage is not in tacitus' writing style.


Richard Carrier

Here are some questions, why would Tacitus a Roman Historian who had access to and be able to use official sources from Roman archives label Pilate incorrectly as a procurator rather than a Prefect. If the passage is real then what exactly were his sources to get something like that wrong?

Why would Tacitus use the word “messiah” in an authentic Roman document? Especially for someone who was anti Christian.

Why was the passage not quoted by any Church father up to the 15th century, the passage would have been very useful to them?

I think they are 5th century to 8th century copies going by memory. I already stated what I believe it to be, but I can't say for certain if it is a forgery or not. I do know none are original works. Maybe that explains why words were changed. As you said it could be a mistake.


I have laid out information and people can decide for themselves you seem to be very upset that other aspects which raise questions have been presented. It is just information people can take it or leave it. I know it doesn't change your mind, but as I said I am not really presenting it just for you.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Involutionist
Listen to the words carefully: “Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified”
Why is Paul questioning the crucifiction story which is a fundamental core belief of Christianity? Again, why did Paul convert...?

He is NOT questioning the story.
What you are doing is taking the English word "portrayed" and reading into it one of the overtones it receives in modern English.
What Paul is saying is "The fact that Christ was crucified was clearly presented to you, as in a picture".
A verbal picture, I would imagine, rather than a literal one.
Similarly, in modern times, Kennedy is portrayed to the modern generation as having been shot. Not because it didn't happen, but because it did happen.
I made no comment on your quotation, because it did not occur to me that you would be reading that far-fetched interpretation into it.
You are practising eisegesis rather than exegesis,which undermines the value of your interpretations.


.I was told to brush up on my understanding of OT by Disraeli.

Why do you say that?
I told you to brush up on your knowledge of New Testament Greek.
See, you can't even be bothered to read my words properly, never mind Paul's.




edit on 14-4-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The whole Tacitus text stinks to "high heaven"! Why would "Christians", who were actually Jews according to all accounts, be rioting in Rome over the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth when the story goes that it was the Jews who demanded it! Makes no sense!

Seems much more likely, if the text if legit, and I'm not saying it is, that the crowd was rioting over the slaughter and crucifixions of hundreds of (Good=Chrestus) Samaritan Jews in the uprising in the spring of 36AD. Pilate's brutality was the last straw and caused Pontius Pilate to be recalled to Rome to answer charges in 67AD.
edit on 14-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Notice what the people are claiming to have done to get into heaven...works....and your right Jesus says to do God's will and what does Jesus say when asked what God's will is?



Gonna have to object to this line of reasoning...

Jesus wasn't claiming that people did works to try to get into heaven... HE was speaking of people who LACKED good works

what is the will of the Father?

Well the first two commandment are Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself... that's a good start...

So can you love your neighbour just by words alone? Of course not, it requires action not words...

Read.... please...

27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.



Jesus taught Faith plus works equals salvation... Not faith alone... Proof is in the passage...

He made this statement in this passage because it is Gods will to do good works for our neighbours...


edit on 15-4-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Yup. Jesus says right there in Luke 6:35 "reward". Doing the work leads to the reward.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
James was not the blood brother of Jesus. It astounds me how many times I read this here, from supposedly knowledgable people. It's right in the bible, he had different parents. It's that simple.



a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

Enlighten me.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme



This video explains pretty well how I view faith vs works.

Present your view or a video to give me your view on faith vs works.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme



This video explains pretty well how I view faith vs works.

Present your view or a video to give me your view on faith vs works.
edit on 15-4-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




Here are some questions, why would Tacitus a Roman Historian who had access to and be able to use official sources from Roman archives label Pilate incorrectly as a procurator rather than a Prefect.


I don't want to debate so I'll give you info you can take what you can from it:

The short piece of evidence, Tacitus could have been using an anachronism on purpose.(Cite Bruce Chilton, Craig Evans, and Van Voorst)

Warren Carter states that, as the term "prefect" has a military connotation, while "procurator" is civilian, the use of either term may be appropriate for governors who have a range of military, administrative and fiscal responsibilities(Wiki:Tacitus on Christ)

A procurator was a financial administrator who acted as the emperor's personal agent. A prefect was a military official.

Evidence from the time period suggest the terms were interchangeable:

Both Philo and Josephus refer to Pilate as a procurator(reference Louis Feldman), although both of these writers used the greek word "epitropos" it is regularly translated "procurator."

Josephus refers to Cuspius Fadus both as "prefect" and "procurator".

Obvious fluidity in the terms.




Why would Tacitus use the word “messiah” in an authentic Roman document? Especially for someone who was anti Christian.



Read that tacitus passage. It takes a negative tone towards Christians its basically a polemic. Referring to him as Jesus doesn't explain how Christians got their name:

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 Judaea, 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."

The bold section should show you why he used the term Christus...for more detail about the group of people named Christians...




Why was the passage not quoted by any Church father up to the 15th century, the passage would have been very useful to them?



Oh a polemic against Christianity would have been helpful for the Church Fathers? Thats not reasonable imo. The passage would have been of little value other than to show Jesus was a real. This was not questioned by the skeptics at the time of the Church fathers.




I think they are 5th century to 8th century copies going by memory. I already stated what I believe it to be, but I can't say for certain if it is a forgery or not. I do know none are original works. Maybe that explains why words were changed. As you said it could be a mistake.


And this is what made me so defensive. Your presenting this as though the time period isn't the norm. Lets look at the manuscript evidence for many other writers we base history on and see how it compares:

Pliny- earliest manuscript available=850 AD -750 years after the original

Plato- earliest manuscript available=900 AD -1200 years after the original

Herodotus- earliest manuscript available=900 AD- 1300 years after the original

Thucydides -earliest manuscript available=900 AD- 1300 years after the original

Aristotle- earliest manuscript available=1100 AD -1400 years after the original

Sophocles- earliest manuscript available=1000 AD-1400 years after the original

Tacitus- earliest manuscript available=1100 AD- 1000 years after the original

I can go on for days showing that the time period between the original is normal for works of history.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
These folks are mentioned as "brothers" of Jesus. I'll then give you the scripture that shows they are not blood siblings. It's important.


James and Joses are the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40)

Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles) (Lk 6:16)

James the lesser, was the son of Alphaeus.(Lk 6:15)

James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee and their mother was a Mary other than The Blessed Mary. (Mt 20:20)

The Lateran Council in 649 definitively declared Mary "ever virgin and immaculate"

St Jerome, in the 4th Century declared that anyone who says Mary had other children is a "novel, wicked and daring affront to the faith of the whole world"



a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would "Christians" Jews in Rome be rioting about the death of Jesus in Jerusalem when it was JEWS that demanded his death of Pilate? Looking at the history of Rome and Judea/Jerusalem it seems that Jesus wasn't missed at all. There were no end of people there to take his place, and take his place they did. 30,000 followed the Egyptian alone!

You really have completely ignore history, the culture of the era and take several leaps of faith to think for a moment that Tacitus is talking about Jesus of Nazareth.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join