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.

 

Thomas is "the twin" of Jesus because Thomas is Tammuz

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
a reply to: rukia

Thought so.

FYI Tammuz means ''twin born" and Thomas means twin in Aramaic as does his Greek epithet Didymus.

So your problem with my title stems from a lack of knowledge, not something you should have a problem with me over or my title.

Acts of Thomas calls him the twin and speaks of the fact that Thomas was given the secret teachings a la Gospel of Thomas, which also calls him twin.

I thought Judas Thomas, called Didymus (twin), was the brother of James the Just according to the Acts of Thomas.


Being that James the Just was ALSO Jesus brother according to the NT that is a rather pointless..."point".



It really depends on which Gnostic text you pay credence to, 'cause they just can't seem to agree.


The New Testament has 2 religions, that of Jesus/James and the 12 and that of Paul. The two theologies are well known by scholars and sharp students to be incompatible.

The Bible has never been able to keep its story straight and has many contradictions.

I would guess you are pro Bible anti Apocrypha so that makes your opinion a little tainted and apparently you don't apply the same equal analysis to your personal Canon as you do to the scriptures of the Egyptian Christians so called Gnostic.

Typical bias and a parable Jesus told about a plank in your eye and a sliver in your neighbor's comes to mind.

The New Testament being the eye with the plank the Apocrypha being the eye with the sliver.

Hell the 4 Gospels have contradictory accounts of different events.




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Muffenstuff

The word for Twin in Hebrew/Aramaic is nearly identical with the name Thomas. Heb. מאומים «Taumayim» is the dual «twins» of Heb. מאומה/תאומא «Taumah» (name means «the Twin»). «Tammuz» is written Heb. תמוז and as you can see it's a totally different word.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Muffenstuff

The word for Twin in Hebrew/Aramaic is nearly identical with the name Thomas. Heb. מאומים «Taumayim» is the dual «twins» of Heb. מאומה/תאומא «Taumah» (name means «the Twin»). «Tammuz» is written Heb. תמוז and as you can see it's a totally different word.


I believe I called it a play on words.

Further evidenced by the fact that Didymus also means twin.

don't know what you wanted to convey, but it certainly doesn't hurt my premise and actually just helps reinforce it.

So thanks.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

If you were under the impression that I was implying that Tammuz was the Hebrew word for Thomas I honestly don't see why.

Pun, play on words, both terms I used to describe why Thomas is the twin of Christ. Because Christ is a combination of the Hebrew Messiah and Babylonian Tammuz, his "twin.''

So I am mystified as to why you needed to tell me they weren't the same word, which I never even implied.

But you are always reasonable so I don't think it was intentional .



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Muffenstuff

All I said is that your «wordplay» is about as wellfounded as saying there is a link between the English word Milk and the Hebrew word for king, Melek or that there is «wordplay» in motion between Roma and Rum. We are talking totally different languages spanning thousands of years, you just don't have a case.

Thomas means literally twin in Hebrew just like the English name Trinity means literally trinity. Why would you bring in Serenity because they share a few letters and claim there is a link?

ETA: Tammuz is also the name of the Hebrew month that corresponds to Cancer. Gemini, the Twins, is one month earlier. So no luck there either.
edit on 8-8-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

No, it is not.

It's well founded and accurate but feel free to disagree. Everything I said makes perfect sense and is logical and rather obvious.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Muffenstuff

The word for Twin in Hebrew/Aramaic is nearly identical with the name Thomas. Heb. מאומים «Taumayim» is the dual «twins» of Heb. מאומה/תאומא «Taumah» (name means «the Twin»). «Tammuz» is written Heb. תמוז and as you can see it's a totally different word.


THIS is illogical. You fail to understand what I am saying is all. I have no issue with that, although you apparently do because you're denying that which makes perfect sense as if it doesn't make any.

I would encourage you to think a little harder about it.

A link on page 1 provided by someone who understands might help with your apparent confusion.
edit on 8-8-2016 by Muffenstuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Interesting correlation between DUMUZI and LORD JESUS CHRIST...


His name, usually written as "dumu.zi" means literally "rightful son"; Thorkild Jacobsen in his master work "The Treasures of Darkness" prefers "Quickener of the Young in the Mother´s Womb". In Hebrew and Aramaic, Dumuzi is called Tammuz in Hebrew and Aramaic.


www.gatewaystobabylon.com...


I will put it on page 2 so you can easily access it [Utnapisjtim]



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I saw your ETA:

Nothing about it refutes anything I said, all it means is the Hebrews had a month named Tammuz .

So what? This was long before Christianity and the facts remain:

Thomas is a play on words of Tammuz, which means "twin born" for whatever reason.

Thomas means twin, Didymus means twin and the author is hinting at the fact that Christ is a twin/copy to Tammuz.

Christmas, or the traditions of, began with Tammuz and Nimrod and was celebrated on Dec. 25.

As is Christs (and every other sun god) birthday, for no reason other than he is based off Tammuz.

Ishtar or Easter or Semiramis, mother of Tammuz also gets a "Christian" holiday for no other reason than Catholicism is a hybrid of Messianic Judaism and Babylonian polytheism.

Do you not know that all the Catholic imagery is Babylonian or do you not want to?

I will resign to the entire concept being lost on you as your opinion is irrelevant to the truth, the rather obvious truth, and let you figure it out, or not (not a concern of mine), on your own.
edit on 8-8-2016 by Muffenstuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Muffenstuff

The word for Twin in Hebrew/Aramaic is nearly identical with the name Thomas. Heb. מאומים «Taumayim» is the dual «twins» of Heb. מאומה/תאומא «Taumah» (name means «the Twin»). «Tammuz» is written Heb. תמוז and as you can see it's a totally different word.


THIS is illogical. You fail to understand what I am saying is all.


No, YOU are playing games within a field you have no clue in, and YOU fail to understand certain basic concepts within linguistics. I have showed you there is no etymological connection, there is no morphological connection, there is no semantical connection and there is no bloody connection eh? At all! And you forget that your «theory» only works if the Aramaic name Taumah is written in Greek, Thomas, you have NO case, and you fail to step down when you are proven wrong. Stick your tail between your legs and run for the hills dude, there is nothing here! Except for a schmock who keeps spamming his own thread, talking when he should be listening.
edit on 8-8-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Muffenstuff

The word for Twin in Hebrew/Aramaic is nearly identical with the name Thomas. Heb. מאומים «Taumayim» is the dual «twins» of Heb. מאומה/תאומא «Taumah» (name means «the Twin»). «Tammuz» is written Heb. תמוז and as you can see it's a totally different word.


THIS is illogical. You fail to understand what I am saying is all.


No, YOU are playing games within a field you have no clue in, and YOU fail to understand certain basic concepts within linguistics. I have showed you there is no etymological connection, there is no morphological connection, there is no semantical connection and there is no bloody connection eh? At all! And you forget that your «theory» only works if the Aramaic name Taumah is written in Greek, Thomas, you have NO case, and you fail to step down when you are proven wrong. Stick your tail between your legs and run for the hills dude, there is nothing here! Except for a schmock who keeps spamming his own thread, talking when he should be listening.


You are joking right? Lol.

I think you are mad but it is not because I am confused, lack understanding or am playing games. Etymology is different than a play on words (very common in Hebrew) that you are trying to make a literal out of.

I am sorry, I pick up clues and connect dots and your just being rude because you don't get it. I have explained it quite logically and you just don't get it.

So I guess I will not try and convince you if you don't see it. It really is not a major issue for me (that you don't comprehend the symbolic connection to Tammuz).

Have a good day.
edit on 8-8-2016 by Muffenstuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Muffenstuff


I believe I called it a play on words.

When quoting any unknown texts you can not honestly play on the word game without the autographs. There are no autographs available for you to play with. The best you can do is simply give your opinion such as all theologians do. You are assuming a fact with another assumption which is not permissible. Stay with theology and give your assumptions as theory. You have no facts.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Muffenstuff


I believe I called it a play on words.

When quoting any unknown texts you can not honestly play on the word game without the autographs.


I didn't quote anything. I referenced known texts though.



There are no autographs available for you to play with. The best you can do is simply give your opinion such as all theologians do.


More like a theory based on known similarities, and a likely to be true theory at that.



You are assuming a fact with another assumption which is not permissible.


I reckon I needn't any permission. Rather, I assert that nobody can give or deny me permission except myself.



Stay with theology and give your assumptions as theory. You have no facts.


I have a ton of facts. Sometimes I think people think they can make known facts not facts by saying that they aren't facts. You can't.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Muffenstuff

It is obvious that Deadpool is merely just the Santa Claus legend re-worked.

I mean, they both wear red...



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Muffenstuff

It is obvious that Deadpool is merely just the Santa Claus legend re-worked.

I mean, they both wear red...


Riiight. And?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Muffenstuff

You must not be aware (oh and I don't know who Deadpool is) how much mythology borrows from older mythology and that myths from different cultures tell same stories with slight alterations throughout the entirety of known history. And across the world.

But this one is just a deliberate fabrication, the Christ myth , that people pass of as reality and it isn't. Christ is no more real than Tammuz.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
are we sure that yeshua and tammuz werent lifted from an even earlier incarnation of the "trinity"? since the number 3 seems to play such an important role, im willing to guess that there is a third layer hidden somewhere in this puzzle.
edit on 8-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join