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.

 

The Jesus Conspiracy

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Quote: "What part would you say is corrupted?"

Most Modern Churches have Corrupted the Teachings/Philosophy of
Jesus Christ in my Opinion. What I meant was Corrupted by his supposed followers later on in History. These days it is mostly about the Old Testament & Rituals that no-body Understands & Worshiping Priests & getting more Members into the Church to Donate more Money into the Church Coughers.

Quote: "Do you have any Knowledge of his Philosophy?"

Yes I have Studied it Extensively along with Buddha's & other various Spiritual Masters!




posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
What part of his Philosophy do you think is corrupted? becase I know that Modern Churches have Corrupted his Philosophy man has Corrupted his Philosophy but thats not the question. the question is what part of his Philosophy which in the bible is Corrupted.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I would like to add to this... I would say alot of it has been corrupted. I think the Church twisted things around abit to keep the people in Ignorance and confusion. They were the ones that wanted to rule the peoples. You could not even own a Bible. why do you think this is? could it be to control the masses? Just what were they hiding? This is exactly why they killed the man of Galillee! He was Teaching something that was against what they were teaching. If he would have gained any control, they would of lost the People and would have lost control of them, therefore they would not of been able to have power. God forbid anyone else having any kind of Power then the Romans. He was teaching something they Jews did not like, and the Romans had the most power in the world, so they handed him over to the Romans because they knew they had the control to put him to death. so the way I see it, is he was teaching something the Church is not teaching today. just my thoughts!



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
The Romans are clearly alleged to have been his executioners since crucifixion is a Roman, and not a Jewish form of capital punishment. So why didn't the Jews execute him? They are supposed to have been able to convince the Romans to do it? Who was in charge there? It is a Roman method, carried out by Romans, and it has been passed down to us with the additional point that the oppressed, conquered subjects of the Romans, who were not often amenable to taking orders from their victims, were told by the Jews what to do? It is definitely unusual, when the Jews could have stoned him themselves, yet they instead made the bold move of getting their overlords to do it for them. Not impossible, but it is a stretch. My theory is that if it is a true story, the Romans wanted to kill him and that is why they crucified him. It just makes more sense, a popular local, of royal lineage, contender for the throne, making waves.... The Romans had good reason to decide that he was trouble down the road, maybe even sparking a revolt, so that is why the Romans killed him, cuz they wanted to, not cuz their oppressed subjects were telling them to.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
In my opinion, i would have more reason to believe, Jesus and the bible, or more or less religion in itself is just made up as a form of control. For example if u dont follow the ways of the bible, u are a sinner and will go to hell if u dont follow the RULES!!!! Does that not sound like a way of controlling the human race into doing what they tell ya 2 do. Well thats my opinion.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stonerphatpat
In my opinion, i would have more reason to believe, Jesus and the bible, or more or less religion in itself is just made up as a form of control. For example if u dont follow the ways of the bible, u are a sinner and will go to hell if u dont follow the RULES!!!! Does that not sound like a way of controlling the human race into doing what they tell ya 2 do. Well thats my opinion.
It is a form of control. and a form of power to control the people. Listen Seraphim... you might as well bang your head into a wall then to get these people to see what you are trying to say. They dont have eyes to see or ears to hear. I see whats going on. its so nice to be able to see the true light.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Chasrac64 - The way I see it & what I am trying to say is that it is all a Matter of INTERPRETATION! That is why I always choose to Interpret things for myself & form my own opinions!

Lets take the Bible for instance - you can Interpret it Literally (as many do) - but this kind of defeats the Purpose (because it is the MESSAGE that counts) - it sucks all of the Spirituality out & turns you into it's Slave Mentally. It puts you into a Prison of Rituals & Dogma!


On the other hand if you choose - you can simply use it as a TOOL! I choose to Interpret the Bible on a more Esoteric Level! I recommend that people choose this path instead - same book - only this time it can lead to Enlightenment instead of Control!


OK now lets use Alchemy as an example. When most people think of Alchemy they LITERALLY think of the Art of "Turning Lead to Gold". However it is more beneficial to see this for what it really is - a Metaphor! The REAL Power of Alchemy (& what it teaches you to do) lies in the Art of Transformation/Transmutation!



[edit on 1-8-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I have been wanting to get more into this study but have not a clue as where to start.
Looks so complex



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
@Chasrac64:an excellent site to start with:
www.jesusneverexisted.com...
Baloria



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I have this site. I visit often..LOL.. after reading this and searching everything out, it makes one WONDER
well this is complex. At this time I`m sorting through it all. Conclusion so far, Its got to be the message that was taught here about Immortality. ( the many Jesus`s) actually the name is so much as Zeus, so Jesus is not English its Greek-latin a hybrid name. That enough show send out warning signals. actually I have a article here out of "U S News" called collectors edition, " secrets of the Da vinci" it got the good and the bad about the book, but one article in ? is... let me give you an I dea here what it says. " was Jesus Real"? It say " In your Opinion,is there any Evidence that Jesus Exsit? None at all. The Only Evidence we have is Fake"
There is No Evidence at all but loads of Evidence to suggest that the Gospel story is fake"
can you Imagine... what if the opposite of what we were taught is all lies and thhis my Friend is the Great Deception, what if this is how The Advesary has decieved the whole world.
we would all of have been decieved at one time or another in our lives.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Hey Smallpeeps - I am sorry for Flaking on you - I have been really Busy Lately (P.S. SmallPeeps those Images are on the way - Charasac64 - Do you really want to know what is the TRUTH ? Well Listen up - here is a Lesson)! The Original Old Testament (i.e. the TORAH) is written in HEBREW! It was later Converted into “Koine Greek” by Alexandrian Rabbi’s! This book is known as the “Septuagint” (It is still available today - Translated into ENGLISH - by “SIR Author Brenton” – do a Amazon.com search if you are interested)! This is what the Gospels are based on!

These Enlightened Author's Realized what Jesus was saying – what his MESSAGE was - Jesus (in Greek = Iousus i.e. In Hebrew/Aramaic – “YehSHuhah”) was the Enlightened Messiah of *"ISRAEL"* (only he Preached LOVE & COMPASSION instead of WAR - contradictory to what the Rebellious Messianic Jews of that ERA were Expecting) - & so they also translated his Enlightened Sayings into Koine Greek - This is what the *GOSPELS* (Hence the New Testament – I Recommend the *TYNDALE New Testament* – also available on Amazon.com) were BASED on!

Charasac64 - Just for you - Wasn't it “JESUS CHRIST” that said:
"I am the LIGHT & the LIFE"?!

P.S. Don't worry about "SATAN" too much - after all wasn't it "YAHVEH" that said, "I CREATE the GOOD & the EVIL"?

So what if "Jesus" never Existed as a Mortal - or if he was Crucified in the End - do you Deny that HE (-> i.e. ”CHRIST”) is the SAVIOUR? If not - I recommend that you read the TORAH!


That's right baby – you are messing with a *BIBLICAL SCHOLAR* - Word UP! Any Response?


[edit on 3-8-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Let me just say that I believe that There was a messenger ( The Man of gaillee) This is true. for gods sake there was someone that they cared enough to write about...LOL. ok but really I believe that The OT God is not the same as what The Man Of Galillee taught. I believe that a message was being taught.
I Believe this person taught man and gave knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins. also he was a Horn that was raised up in the house of David. and he was called the Prophet of the Highest. To give light to them that sit in the darkness,and in the shadow of death and to giude our feet in the way of peace. That we should be saved from our enemies.
Who is he, that was sent?
now I ask you tell me!



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I will tell you who I believe this person is, I just want to know if you can tell me who this is.
Now this is truely what I believe. and after you answer me, I`ll tell you why I believe this.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Quote: "there was someone that they cared enough to write about...LOL. ok but really I believe that the
OT God is not the same as what the Man Of Galillee taught. I believe that a message was being taught.
I Believe this person taught man and gave Knowledge of Salvation unto his people."



Yes - I Agree! I also Believe that this Knowledge is in fact what people find so Controversial! The Source of the Controversy so to Speak!

Why are there so many people on Earth now that call themselves "Christians" - yet don't believe in the "Path of Peace"? Why do these "Christians" consider SEX between a Man & Woman to be "Dirty" or “Sinful” (I hate that word) - after all isn't it only Natural - just as GOD intended?


[edit on 6-8-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
You are so right because I believe that Love Is the most powerful force on Earth, now this is My Opinion. I think Sex is a great thing. LOL think about it...and you are so right. The Almighty intended for this to be. Quote: Multiply re-plenish the Earth" how else could you do this? The Church made this a Bad thing.
I have many Issues with what we call the church today. I am just on my own here trying to put together what I can and try to find out whos who. The church made alot of things that were good bad.
I believe Jesus Had Sex, alright. He was a man, in the flesh so he had manly urges..hmmm.

I have not met one yet that didnt.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
You have voted Chasrac64 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

I agree, I think He did live, and had sex, and was very enlightened. But I also see the lack of any solid proof very clearly. If the NT is just fiction, then I would have to accept that generations of good smart folk were all duped. I really hope that is not the case. The message is the thing anyway. If we all try to live like the great religious teachers did, we'll be okay. I still look up things in the Bibles I have here constantly, and still find more confirmation that supports what my current speculation is. It is hard to imagine its all fiction.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dnero6911

And I would like to point out that Santa Clause is based off of a real person who lived, he was a saint, he went around the village giving out presents.. I'm not totally positive on the whole history of it, but I know it is factual..



Slaps forehead.....



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
But I also see the lack of any solid proof very clearly.
...
It is hard to imagine its all fiction.


You admit that there is no solid evidence in support of a historical Jesus, yet also doubt that to be the case. Why?

There are two ways of looking at evidence. The first is to form a premise and see if the evidence prohibits it.

The second is to take the negation of the premise and see if the evidence prohibits that.

None of the evidence rules out a historical origin for Jesus, but none of the evidence rules out a purely mythical Jesus either. There are clues that positively affirm both positions, but nothing solid.

But whether or not there was a historical figure, does not dilute the mythical nature of the Bible Jesus. So, other than answering a historical curiosity, it really doesn't matter if there was a historical basis for Jesus when analyzing the mythical Jesus of the Bible, any more than it is critical to know whether or not there is a historical figure behind the Santa myth when analyzing the Santa myth itself.

Most modern Christians are adamant about the historicity of Jesus, even though the founder of modern Christianity, Paul, did not seem to care about the man Jesus in the slightest (assuming he even believed in a historical Jesus rather than a mystical Christ). Not once did Paul refer to anything that would pin down the geneaology of Jesus, the time period of Jesus, the ministry of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, his birthplace, his hometown, or anything else that ties his Jesus to a historical person, place, or time. Paul never indicates that his Jesus was a recent historical figure, but instead makes references to Jesus conquering sin before the beginning of time.

Only his references to crucifixion, and the body and blood suggest a physical human. But even these do not preclude a mystical Jesus who made such a sacrifice in the spiritual domain.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
So, other than answering a historical curiosity, it really doesn't matter if there was a historical basis for Jesus when analyzing the mythical Jesus of the Bible, any more than it is critical to know whether or not there is a historical figure behind the Santa myth when analyzing the Santa myth itself.


Actually it does matter to those who are interested in the truth. We know who the true santa was and what is myth. We also know how santa became myth and that these myths weren't written as an actual record of his time on earth.


Originally posted by spamandham
Most modern Christians are adamant about the historicity of Jesus, even though the founder of modern Christianity, Paul,


Paulianity? Sorry, try again.


Originally posted by spamandham
did not seem to care about the man Jesus in the slightest (assuming he even believed in a historical Jesus rather than a mystical Christ).


We've been through this before, which is why I'm glad you've answered this in your own post later on here.


Originally posted by spamandham
Not once did Paul refer to anything that would pin down the geneaology of Jesus, the time period of Jesus, the ministry of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, his birthplace, his hometown, or anything else that ties his Jesus to a historical person, place, or time.


Did Paul ever meet Jesus? Yes, but it wasn't before his resurrection, therefore cannot speak first-hand on that account. He speaks of the Jesus as he knew him. I'm not going to say, "When I was with Jesus at the last supper" 'cause I wasn't there. I'd be lacking a lot of detail would I not? My knowledge of that event is from the record. Which is why a Book cannot save anyone. It takes a living Christ to do anything for any of us today.


Originally posted by spamandham
Paul never indicates that his Jesus was a recent historical figure, but instead makes references to Jesus conquering sin before the beginning of time.


He did reflect what Jesus said, that Jesus was there since the beginning. If anything, this shows Paul is on target and can be verified, not that he's presenting new material or his own religion.


Originally posted by spamandham
Only his references to crucifixion, and the body and blood suggest a physical human.


There's your own answer.


Originally posted by spamandham
But even these do not preclude a mystical Jesus who made such a sacrifice in the spiritual domain.


Jesus was both physical and spiritual as represented, but neither of these equate to myth.


[edit on 16-9-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 16-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Actually it does matter to those who are interested in the truth. We know who the true santa was and what is myth. We also know how santa became myth and that these myths weren't written as an actual record of his time on earth.


The historicity of Nicholas of Myra is doubted by religious historians and mythologists. There is evidence the character was a pagan god turned Saint (a common practice). The first mention of St. Nicholas was made by emperor Justinian (527-565 CE), hundreds of years after the 'facts'. Since Santa is not central to your faith, you can research this for yourself with an open mind I presume.


Originally posted by saint4God
Paulianity? Sorry, try again.


Yes, Paul. The vast majority of the New Testament was written by Paul and those who claim to have been his companions.


Originally posted by saint4God
Did Paul ever meet Jesus? Yes, but it wasn't before his resurrection, therefore cannot speak first-hand on that account.


It isn't a matter of speaking first hand, he doesn't speak of him at all other than his crucifixion and resurrection. If Jesus were a real historical person, certainly Paul would have been familiar with the teachings of Jesus. There are numerous occasions where Paul teaches something similar to what Jesus taught, but refers to the Old Testament as the authority rather than referring to Jesus.

By your line of reasoning, Paul would not have written about the crucifixion and resurrection either, since he witnessed neither. Yet, he did write about it. So to say that Paul would only have written about what he personally witnessed is incredulous on that basis.


Originally posted by saint4God
He did reflect what Jesus said, that Jesus was there since the beginning.


He does more than just say Jesus was there since the beginning, he (including the pseudo-Pauline epistles) says the sacrifice happened then as well. He also says this is a mystery that he (Paul) was given to reveal. How can it have been a revealed mystery if it was a recent historical event?


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Only his references to crucifixion, and the body and blood suggest a physical human.


There's your own answer.


Not really, as these makes sense from a mystical Platonic perspective as well, popular at the time.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join