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.

 

Vatican: Bible Confirms Jesus Was Not Crucified

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Well, the Catholic church is full of crap.

The Poope also say it's 'dangerous' to have a personal relationship with Christ - when in fact it is the ONLY way to gain your salvation.

No, the CC is nothing but a lying whore.

peace




posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13
Well, the Catholic church is full of crap.

The Poope also say it's 'dangerous' to have a personal relationship with Christ - when in fact it is the ONLY way to gain your salvation.

No, the CC is nothing but a lying whore.

peace



When did the pope say that ?

The Catholic church may be full of corrupt leaders , but no different than many other religious organizations.
They have stayed true to the dogma , unlike many others ( such as in same sex marriage).



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Bottom line is, there is no hidden agenda behind the supposed disclosure of a Paulian gospel sneaking Jesus out the back leaving Judas on the gallows.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sheye

He did just a week or so ago.

I'll try to find the article for you Sheye. What I can say is I went and listened to it in the original Italian and in fact he did say to have a 'presonal relationship' with Jesus is dangerous, etc.

I didn't mean to offend you - but - there it is.

Edit to add:

Pope Francis Says 'Personal Relationship With Jesus' Is 'Harmful And Dangerous'

Very scary.

peace

edit on 1942Wednesday201713 by silo13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Sheye

He did just a week or so ago.

I'll try to find the article for you Sheye. What I can say is I went and listened to it in the original Italian and in fact he did say to have a 'presonal relationship' with Jesus is dangerous, etc.

I didn't mean to offend you - but - there it is.

peace


I believe you Silo ... I'm not a fan of this pope anyhow .. or many in the upper echelons of the Catholic church. I agree there is much corruption and according to some mystical revelations given to a marian priest , the antichrist will rise out of the vatican.

There are also prophecies that the the last pope would be a Jesuit ( called a black pope )...so ..
I think some of those prophecies may have been posted on ATS , but again it doesn't mean they are true.

They are an interesting read none the less...
malachia prophecies
www.irishcentral.com...

edit on 23-8-2017 by Sheye because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2017 by Sheye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Sheye

Yes, I remember that - and I do believe he will be the last.

I'm not sure about the Antichrist coming out of the vatican (I was taught her was supposed to be from Sumerian or the region) along with the vatican being destroyed.

Whatever happens? I think we'll be here to see it.

Hang on to your faith Sheye!

peace



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Sheye

Yes, I remember that - and I do believe he will be the last.

I'm not sure about the Antichrist coming out of the vatican (I was taught her was supposed to be from Sumerian or the region) along with the vatican being destroyed.

Whatever happens? I think we'll be here to see it.

Hang on to your faith Sheye!

peace


Thank you Silo.. I will hang on to my faith as it is the only thing that has sustained me through some very dark times.

As far as the truth concerning the end times... I do believe we will be seeing evidence that the Holy Trinity is desperately calling souls to conversion in this extended period of grace.

Jesus is love and wishes to lose no souls to the false enlightenment of evil.

Those who view their " magic" as truth , and denounce the real truth as " fairy tales " may soon find themselves in a true spiritual awakening.

May the loving Holy Spirit help us all !



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The Sanhedrin text indicates that Jesus was hanged as a sorcerer.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift


The Sanhedrin text indicates that Jesus was hanged as a sorcerer.

I believe you have the wrong Jesus. The one you are referencing was several hundred years later than the Jesus of the NT.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Vatican is illuminati controlled and has been for a long time.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TheChrome

Close, but no cigar. Hell, as you said above is Sheol, or the grave. The lake of fire is metaphorical of destruction, why? Because Christ referred to Gehenna numerous times. It was a trash heap outside the walls of Jerusalem where people threw their trash to be burned up and destroyed. Thus, the lake of fire as described at Revelation can be understood as total destruction. It means: Death, and the grave (Hell, Sheol) will be destroyed forever.



There was no knowledge that the evil spirit of souls would die the second death. It was then believed that, collectively, all people died and their spirits were contained in Sheol. Not in Gehinnom but in Sheol.


It is incorrect to think the soul lives beyond death, and is not biblical. Jesus said “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Mark 14:34) Furthermore, the bible says: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecclesiastes 9:5) The teaching of everlasting soul, is common to Rabbinic Judaism, Christendom, and Islam, but is not a biblical teaching. There is no soul that lives on after death. When you die, your dead!

Rabbinic Judaism is not the doctrine of the Christ Jesus. Rabbinic Judaism does not accept a celestial life with a new celestial body nor a second death which is the celestial death of the spirit. In fact there is almost nothing of the doctrine of Jesus that resembles the doctrine of rabbinic Judaic teachings.


Yes, Rabbinic Judaism adopted all the pagan customs of ancient religion, as did Christendom after the first century. Judaism is not the religion of the Israelites of the bible, nor is Christendom a reflection of the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

In NT study one must always be aware that the entire Gospels are peppered with rabbinic doctrine and the reason is that the NT is a conversion from rabbinic doctrine to that of the Nazarene doctrine of Jesus.


No. Rabbinic doctrine is of what was taught by man. While the early apostles struggled with the customs of their day, rabbinic doctrine is far from the teachings of the scriptures.


Rabbinic Judaic teachings are varied.


There are no variations in the truth as taught by God. The truth can only be one thing. “For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace.” (1 Corinthians 14:33) You don’t seriously think there can be more than one way of truth? You don’t think you can come to God by yourself, when the scriptures indicate that Christians would be united? “

Jesus has never taught Gehennom as punishment for the dead.


True


Jesus has always taught that after death the spirit of the soul is contained in a conscious state in Sheol.

Nope! Where are you getting this?
edit on 27-8-2017 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome


It is incorrect to think the soul lives beyond death, and is not biblical. Jesus said “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Mark 14:34) Furthermore, the bible says: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecclesiastes 9:5) The teaching of everlasting soul, is common to Rabbinic Judaism, Christendom, and Islam, but is not a biblical teaching. There is no soul that lives on after death. When you die, your dead! Text

The soul does not live beyond death of the soul. As a Nazarene, I understand the soul to be the terrestrial body and the terrestrial body will die and return to the source of its existence. You quoted Ecclesiastes and in that understanding I do agree in that what you quoted was the understanding of Solomon and not the doctrine of the Christ Jesus. But you have not addressed the theology of the spirit that controls the soul [body]. Your understanding rejects the resurrection of the Spirit of man whereas it is plainly stated in 1st Corinthians 15:42-52 that the doctrine of the Nazarene's teaches us the very opposite of what you believe.

As Jesus walked the earth He stated -------------------

John_3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

The kingdom of heaven was not given to mankind till after the death of Jesus. Up to that time all spirits of the dead souls were contained in the earth as Jesus has shown in Luke 16:19-31.

Jesus teaches us, in Luke 16:19-31, that the spirits of people were contained in the earth as conscious bodiless entities who have been judged and are in containment as to their rewards. At this time no spirit of men/women had ascended into the heavens beyond the second heaven.

When we discuss rabbinic teachings you must be aware that Rabbinic can mean that of the Pharisees, Essen's or Sadducee's, among others. The ruling class of Jews in the days of Jesus were the Sadducee's. The entire temple authority was that of the house of Annas and son in law Caiaphas who were Sadducee's appointed by Rome to that office of high priest. The Sadducee's did not believe in the afterlife of the spirit of man but the Pharisees and the Essene's did believe in the spirit of everlasting life. When you read Luke 16:19-31, that is not the rabbinic teachings of the Sadducee's but is that of the Pharisee's even though both are rabbinic teachings. It is strongly believe that Jesus was more inclined to the teachings of the Essene's and Pharisee's.

As you read the NT, you are reading a mixture of rabbinic teachings and happenings in that era. Some are that of the Sadducee's and some are that of other sects of rabbinic teachings and then some are those of the new doctrine of Jesus. You must be careful when you quote a scripture as to what that scripture pertains. Most certainly the dead did not know what the living were doing and when you read Luke 16:19-31, it will also tell you the same thing as Ecc. states. But that has nothing to do with the theology of the doctrine of afterlife. That pertains to the dead not aware of this realm of the living.

Now that the kingdom of heaven has been given to us and the Christ followers are in the celestial New Jerusalem, is not to say that they can know beyond their realm. None of the dead are aware of this realm just as we are not aware of their realm. The very same can be said of those unjust spirits who were left in Sheol of this earth. They are not aware of either the celestial or terrestrial realms just the same as we are not aware of their realms.

According to 1st Corinthians those just spirits which now abide in the third heaven have received their resurrection of a new name written upon a white stone and a new celestial body to cover their celestial spirits. This is a daily resurrection of the just souls who die each and every day. Today, as the soul dies it is then immediately judged and the sentence carried out. The spirits of the just are carried to the Kingdom of Heaven and the unjust are carried to Sheol to join the rest of those who were not justified for salvation. Sheol has now been understood as being hell and hell already having been judged will not be judged again but will be destroyed by the ethereal fire along with this entire universe.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad

originally posted by: Raggedyman
This stuff has been around for a millennia
What makes it so questionable is that the original letters and gospels were written and told directly after the death of Christ
Imagine if someone today, someone famous, started running around saying he was executed then rose from the dead and no one actually saw it happen
They would be laughed at and ridiculed
No one would follow or even give them any validity, yet Jesus started one of the largest faith followings ever
Barnabas book, nothing new, nothing not already seen and studied
As for gold lettered writing, that is not really of any. Consequence, sounds like it is the exact opposite of what Christ taught people

Written 2000 years ago, that's another silly thing to say


Hang on I'm under the impression that it is well established by academics and religious historians that the earliest Gospel written was Mark and that was 60-90 years after Christs death and the others possibly over 100 years. It's a bit like me trying to write a book about the start of WW1


There is a lot of argument about the specifics of the order in which the gospels were written and which writer influenced which.

The current most accepted theory is that the gospel of Mark was written first, during the time of increased persecution of Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero. This puts it around 62-64AD. This is roughly 30 years after the crucifixion (most likely 33AD but some arguments for 30AD exist).

This would be right at the time of St. Peter's oversight of the church in Rome. There are lots of little detailed touches in the gospel of Mark that suggest the writer was basically writing on behalf of an eyewitness (ie Peter).

Based on that timeline; your analogy is a little bit off. It is more like you sitting down today to write an account of the 1st Gulf War using interviews with a veteran as a primary source of material. I'm sure we can agree that this seems a fairly reasonable method and timeframe.

Also keep in mind that the oral and written communications of the early churches are well developed by this point. St. Paul has already completed his writings which will go on to form the bulk of the NT canon.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Until THE OTHER 45 books this organization has denied are open cannon biblical to study, when they were ROMANS ,it can be easily debated.
ALL kinds of things we aren't told,Reincarnation,DON'T need a church or faith in any religion for GOD (actual)...
I have NO idea if anyone teaches based on them all or even what such a religion would called.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TheChrome


It is incorrect to think the soul lives beyond death, and is not biblical. Jesus said “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Mark 14:34) Furthermore, the bible says: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecclesiastes 9:5) The teaching of everlasting soul, is common to Rabbinic Judaism, Christendom, and Islam, but is not a biblical teaching. There is no soul that lives on after death. When you die, your dead! Text
“It is strongly believe(d) that Jesus was more inclined to the teachings of the Essene's and Pharisee's.”


Was not Jesus the Son of God? You are saying his teachings were inclined to the Essenes and Pharisees? What? Why would Jesus incline anything towards any teaching of man? Did he not say at (John 18:36) “My kingdom is not of this world.”?



“You quoted Ecclesiastes and in that understanding I do agree in that what you quoted was the understanding of Solomon and not the doctrine of the Christ Jesus.”


So what you are saying is that the bible is wrong in saying “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” – (2Timothy 3:16) That is what you are implying, that the bible is not inspired of God!



“Third heaven”

Where is this in the bible? It is not!



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: cheesyleps

originally posted by: redchad

originally posted by: Raggedyman
This stuff has been around for a millennia
What makes it so questionable is that the original letters and gospels were written and told directly after the death of Christ
Imagine if someone today, someone famous, started running around saying he was executed then rose from the dead and no one actually saw it happen
They would be laughed at and ridiculed
No one would follow or even give them any validity, yet Jesus started one of the largest faith followings ever
Barnabas book, nothing new, nothing not already seen and studied
As for gold lettered writing, that is not really of any. Consequence, sounds like it is the exact opposite of what Christ taught people

Written 2000 years ago, that's another silly thing to say


Hang on I'm under the impression that it is well established by academics and religious historians that the earliest Gospel written was Mark and that was 60-90 years after Christs death and the others possibly over 100 years. It's a bit like me trying to write a book about the start of WW1


There is a lot of argument about the specifics of the order in which the gospels were written and which writer influenced which.

The current most accepted theory is that the gospel of Mark was written first, during the time of increased persecution of Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero. This puts it around 62-64AD. This is roughly 30 years after the crucifixion (most likely 33AD but some arguments for 30AD exist).

This would be right at the time of St. Peter's oversight of the church in Rome. There are lots of little detailed touches in the gospel of Mark that suggest the writer was basically writing on behalf of an eyewitness (ie Peter).

Based on that timeline; your analogy is a little bit off. It is more like you sitting down today to write an account of the 1st Gulf War using interviews with a veteran as a primary source of material. I'm sure we can agree that this seems a fairly reasonable method and timeframe.

Also keep in mind that the oral and written communications of the early churches are well developed by this point. St. Paul has already completed his writings which will go on to form the bulk of the NT canon.



I think all of these subjects can be reduced to a black and white, yes and no scenario. Either the bible is the word of God, or it isn't. If it is the word of God, then it is most certainly complete in it's current form, since God is the one who maneuvers things according to his will. If it isn't the word of God, then any "new" text would be just as much bologna as the rest. For me, prophecy is what dictates that the bible is correct, and therefore it most certainly is the word of God.
edit on 28-8-2017 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome



I thought God rested on the seventh day. And there is no mention in the bible that God have come back from his holliday.


Lord God on the other hand started his religion as soon as God took a brake. There is a reason why non of this makes sense.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome


Was not Jesus the Son of God? You are saying his teachings were inclined to the Essenes and Pharisees? What? Why would Jesus incline anything towards any teaching of man? Did he not say at (John 18:36) “My kingdom is not of this world

All that was meant was that the Essene's taught more in line of the doctrine of Jesus than did the other sects of Judaism. The Essene's did not teach rabbinic teachings but instead taught more of the prophets such as Jesus did. The rabbinic era or era of the Talmud was more opinions of the rabbis than the prophets.



Text So what you are saying is that the bible is wrong in saying “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” – (2Timothy 3:16) That is what you are implying, that the bible is not inspired of God!

Depends upon which bible you are talking about. When Paul wrote 2nd Timothy there was no New Testament or Christian bible. There was only the Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament). So if there was no New Testament, Paul could not have meant New Testament scriptures. Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes so it could not have referenced Jesus doctrine because the New Testament did not exist then.



Where is this in the bible? It is not!

The third heaven is mentioned in 2nd Corinthians 12:2.

edit on 2-9-2017 by Seede because: Wrong information posted.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66



I thought God rested on the seventh day. And there is no mention in the bible that God have come back from his holliday. Lord God on the other hand started his religion as soon as God took a brake. There is a reason why non of this makes sense.

There is some confusion on this very same subject that you have mentioned. God did rest on the seventh day of creation but is the seventh day of creation the same as the seventh day of that which has been created? The reason I asked this in that manner is that in Isaiah Isa 65:17 it is said by this author - "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

Well over 700 years later Jesus came into the picture and and as He was on the tree near death, promised the thief, Ditmas, that he and Ditmas would be in paradise that same day they both would die. Paradise is mentioned only three times in the NT and the NT tells us that paradise is in the third heaven and in the celestial city of New Jerusalem where the trees and water of life are located. This is believed to be that same New Jerusalem that Isaiah mentioned in 65:17.

So here is my question. If God was still in the seventh day resting from creating this world, does that mean that He took a vacation from any other act of creation? Apparently not. My opinion is that the seventh day has long passed. Most all science teaches that the universe is still expanding. If they are correct then that means God is still filling up the empty space and if He is then isn't that creating?

Wouldn't it be ironic to learn that evolution is nothing than creation? Think about it. Perhaps it is nothing but acts of creation.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TheChrome



I thought God rested on the seventh day. And there is no mention in the bible that God have come back from his holliday.


Lord God on the other hand started his religion as soon as God took a brake. There is a reason why non of this makes sense.



You can't be a 'Lord' until you have something to 'lord over'.

He made it - is the Lord - and now rules over his creation.

peace




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join