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 Historical Passion of Christ - What Really Happened

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienVessel

You don’t seem to be at all interested in the historical history.. your not using any for your thesis lol..


You are talking dogma.. not history..

You really need to research the actual critical scholars who research ancient Judea and the ancient manuscripts...


You will never find “truth” if you are only looking at WAY later creations, visions and revisions..


For example..


Mark says jesus died the day after Passover, but Luke says it was the day before...

Who is right??? They both cannot be..

The story about the prostitute being stoned was a WAY later addition. We have many earlier manuscripts and ALL have mark end at the crucifixion.

Once Christianity became a Roman religion (100 ad or sooner) the whole religion changes..

The Jews become the bad guys, the virgin birth is added..


And all these Joseph Smith type prophets who claim they had visions take the stage..


Imho Mark is the only gospel you will find any truth in..

It is the only one with ANY chance of leading back to first person witnesses..


I don’t buy anyone who claims they had visions..

People still claim visions today and have constantly claimed that throughout history..




posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienVessel
Dan Brown's book is rubbish.

Jesus never travel to Britannia ( England ), nor marry Mary and became ancestor to King Arthur.

There is no connection whatsoever between God and the royal family of England.

All kings are mortal human. No kings are divine, be it Roman Emperor or England Kings and Queens.

Bible already mentioned the Israelites were god's firstborn aka the chosen race. Not Anglo-Saxon or Normans or Celtic people.

Bible may not be historical reliable but it is certainly not as rubbish as Dan Brown's book.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow

Yup...

I read the illustrated edition on a vacation with the inlaws.. BIG mistake.. lol




By the end it sold me hook line and sinker.. and was fairly vocal during the trip to a bunch of practicing Catholics.. hehe..


Homie crafts a VERY convincing tale.. the problem is that none of the historical stuff is accurate either..

Man, the illustrated edition is amazing.. getting to see all the art and architecture as your reading was great..

In fact it might have been what started my research into religions.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow
I agree, I wasn't aware that the OP believed what Dan Brown had to say.

Below is a post about dis-info & Dan Brown that I wrote that directly relates to this topic:

reply to post by AprenticeofLight
 


Originally posted by AprenticeofLight
and which version of the bible are you refering to, the original gospels which constantine outlawed and burnt except 4 of them, or the re-written by man version we have today...

And which version of dis-info are YOU referring to?


You say that "the bible is propaganda rubbish, and cannot be trusted " while at the same time you put your trust in and base your argument on propaganda and disinformation from known Illuminati shills.

You are saying that the Bible is propaganda while USING propaganda to back up your argument.

Do you realize the absolute sheer IRONY of this?

Instead of trusting God, you are placing your trust in the Illuminati, whose CEO is the father of ALL lies.


The Da Vinci Code Claims that the four Gospels were selected by Constantine from eighty others. Brown writes: 'Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned' (p. 317). Or again: 'More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion' (p. 313). This is wrong.

Emperor Constantine - Did he remove books from the Bible?

Dan Brown has followed the classic route of disinformation artist. Having established his credibility as a concerned citizen Brown then went on to spread disinformation about some of the major themes of the Rothschild secret empire including, in his 2001 novel Deception Point, the notion that governments are hiding the truth about extraterrestrial life.

What then is the objective of establishment backed stories about secret socities? Now that the internet has allowed the cat out of the bag and people are aware of the Knights Templar; the Rosicrucians; the Freemasons; the Illuminati and the esoteric symbology they share, these organisations are attempting to influence the public's perception through controlled disinformation.

Dan Brown » Controlled Opposition

Manuscript evidence for the New Testament is remarkable, far surpassing that which exists for any other ancient book. And those who work with these ancient copies (called "textual critics") are convinced that they have been able to recover a Greek New Testament which is virtually identical to the original.

This evidence does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. But it does demonstrate conclusively that the Bible you have is the same which was first written by its authors. When Teabing (the Da Vinci Code's "historian") asserts, "History has never had a definitive version of the book" and claims that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible, he's simply wrong.

Is the Bible true?

And the Vatican's intense propaganda continues as they simply are supplying huge payoffs to their friends in Hollywood to keep the real truth from the masses.

Let's start with screen writer Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code fame and move on to Vatican shills, movie director Ron Howard and leading actor in the film, Tom Hanks, who also starred in the Da Vinci Code.

And to factually remind American movie fans of the Vatican and Jesuit connection to this film, eye witnesses in Rome reported that in May of 2007, the trio mentioned above along with media mogul Rupert Murdoch and high level Jesuits and a Vatican Cardinal all met to discuss the film's financing.

Further, they all met to discuss important propaganda points that must be brought out in the film in order to make the black robed Vaticanites appear as innocent and white as snowflakes falling from heaven.

Looking at the group assembled, we know Brown and Murdoch have sold their souls to Lucifer and the Vatican satanists, but shouldn't Howard and Hanks do some research before accepting the Vatican's dirty money?

Vatican Propaganda Reaches All-Time High



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego



As far as I know they bring down Jesus from the cross because next day was Saturday (they cannot do any work on Saturday)and like you said a crucified person do not die in one day, but they prove he was dead when the soldier cut his side. Otherwise they would have broken his legs to accelerate the dead.

Not true at all. The scriptures must be fulfilled and they say that Jesus was three days and three nights in the center of the earth. Some denominations say that Jesus was put to death on a Friday and rose on a Sunday. That would be less than two days that He was dead let alone in the center of the earth not be in agreement with the scriptures. Nice try though.

First you must understand Jewish time at this time in history. A day was counted as 12 hours from about our 6 AM to 6 PM. A night was counted as from about our 6+ PM to about the following morning at about 6AM. The night was counted as watches of about 3 hours per watch.

When you read the KJV bible you must consider that the ninth hour would be counted from 6 Am to about 3 PM. in our understanding. So it was about the 9th hour that Jesus died or in our understanding that would be about 3 PM in our afternoon.

Actually Jesus was put to death on a Wednesday afternoon at about the ninth hour of the hour day. The reason He and the others were removed from their stakes or posts was that the following day was not a Saturday but was the High Sabbath [Thursday] which was regarded as the same holiness as the regular Saturday Sabbath. So from Wednesday evening at about six + PM became the start of the 24 hour Thursday which was the High Sabbath. Now let's count the three 24 hour days and watches. Thursday from 6 PM to 6 PM = day one - Friday from 6 PM to 6 PM = day two - Saturday (regular Sabbath) from 6 PM to 6 PM = day three. Sunday was counted as the first day of the seven days week.

We as a nation celebrate Easter from Friday to Saturday which is not true at all. Regardless, the entire message here is that Jesus died on a Wednesday afternoon at about 3 PM and the next day starting at about Wednesday afternoon at about 6+ PM was The High Sabbath Holy day.

This means that Jesus' uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, and his friend, Nicodemus, had but three hours to seek an audience with Pilate to rightfully claim the body. Submit that claim to the authorities and transport the body to the tomb and then inter the body with a seal. All of this was overseen by the captain of the temple guards.





edit on 16-2-2018 by Seede because: Clarify a sentence that could be read out of context.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
God found out that he the father didn't want to pay child support?



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: manuelram16
Didn't they prove that the Bible parts on that subject were written 100 years after the fact? and there is no historic record.... also the Romans were good record keepers.


Yes and the mystery is that we do not have any correlating documents from within the 100 years of the fact. Scholars admitted that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written Up To year AD 70, but they never tell us which scrolls were written in the 1st century. I happen to know that most of those scrolls are locked away in the vatican archives because they tell the truth which is detrimental to Christianity as we know it today. But even the released scrolls written within that first 100 years go unnoticed because they don't accuse the Heathen or the Gentile or the Kittim in a personal context, they poetically and objectively tell the story from a nonjudgemental standpoint.

There was a gospel about our well known messiah but even the farthest one we have, which is the one I mentioned, was still touched by Gentile hands and therefore still corrupted, it is just much earlier so the amount of corruption is less.

The moral of the OP is that the Gentiles, my ancestors, stole the Hebrews documents and lied to us about what they wrote in their falsified plagurized versions. They deliberately told us the opposite of what the Hebrew saints told us. And people believe it because they do not know that they are being deceived.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienVessel

Your assuming that those first century documents are accurate, and there is no way to know if they are.. even 5 or ten years of oral history could destroy any authenticity and the earliest guesstimates don’t put the first books as being written until 60 years later..


That is 2 generations.. and at the “best case” for Christianity.. it could have been 3 generations and at that distance there would have been no eye witness sources still alive..



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienVessel

There was a gospel about our well known messiah but even the farthest one we have, which is the one I mentioned, was still touched by Gentile hands and therefore still corrupted, it is just much earlier so the amount of corruption is less.

The moral of the OP is that the Gentiles, my ancestors, stole the Hebrews documents and lied to us about what they wrote in their falsified plagurized versions. They deliberately told us the opposite of what the Hebrew saints told us. And people believe it because they do not know that they are being deceived.

They were more likely scribed or copied or translated by those who schooled with Greek's philosophy such as Origen. The concept of the Word or Logos was never part of Jesus sayings. It was taken from Plato's theology. Funny thing is, Origen was deem heretical, yet most of his theology was accepted today. For example, his views on trinity.

Problem with bible is people mixed up with what should be authors commentaries/opinion and Jesus's own words. Thus bible become corrupted with words of men instead of words of god.



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 03:43 AM
link   
"Just as God punished the Egyptians with plagues including the "three days of darkness", the theory states that God will chastise the world with darkness at the end of time. The earth will be enveloped by darkness lasting three days and three nights, the only light source that can be seen being blessed candles. Various Catholic visionaries agree that the faithful should stay within their homes during this period as most of the earth's inhabitants shall die. "

Do we have any record of 3 day eclipse? Or astronomical prediction for 3 days of darkness?



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: AlienVessel
The Christ was indeed let down from the cross after 6 hours. And men do not die on the cross in that amount of time.

Except maybe for men who were beaten half to death and then had a lance jammed into their side once they were up there. I mean, why pick and choose the details just to prove your point? If you're going to believe the thing even happened, you kind of have to buy it all.


Sir, I have to choose details and follow their sources if I am ever to conclude on such evidence the charge I am accusing the early church fathers, of corrupting the scriptures and writing down falsehood in them to corrupt the world.

But the amount of evidence to prove that is extraordinary, surely enough to write a many volume book.

Your rationalism and logic is completely failing in my opinion. We are talking about a story, of a man born from a virgin and later performing miracles that defy the natural laws of reality. If we are to believe that Christ walked the earth, which there is astounding evidence for, why would be be slow to believe that other greedy and lust hungry individuals took his doctrine and added lies to it for the means of power and control? Was their ends accomplished? Yes, the church has been effectively controlled ever since. Also, did his own people claim that same doctrine? No, the Nazarenes, which are the Original Hebrew Christians, did not include the virgin birth in their doctrine. Also do gnostic Gentiles even believe in the legend of Christ until this day? No, they are the freemasons, and the freemasons openly preach that Christ is the same person I am preaching, not a Godhead who can walk on water and stun audiences by defying reality.

So the real question is why you would overlook such an abundant gigantic amount of solid evidence and why you have not been able to tie it all together based on what I am providing. I do not understand the rational to say that just because somebody tells me that a person walked on water that I have to believe their story - because that is what you suggested - even when the people their are saying that he did not walk on water. So you have to really figure out why you think the way you do.



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: manuelram16


Didn't they prove that the Bible parts on that subject were written 100 years after the fact? and there is no historic record.... also the Romans were good record keepers.

Quite the opposite. There is not one letter of the present NT that is proven as being accurate from the autographs. At best it is all assumed by academia. Because a letter may be found and dated is no proof of its origin. You may find a MS of Greek that is found to be penned between certain dates but that is not proof that the letter is not even a autograph of the original language. The original autograph could be in Hebrew and penned in 40 C.E. or a variety of other dates. Luke could have been a Greek copy of a Hebrew origin for all we actually know.

No, the Romans were not as great record keepers as you have imagined. Pontius Pilate has nothing in the Roman archives to prove that he even existed and it was not until 1961 that archeologists found the stone with Pilates name clearly showing that he did actually exist.
source - www.roger-pearse.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienVessel

I believe you misunderstand the Christian beliefs, the belief is that Christ was the sacrifice or propitiation for sin. Sin is death, Christ having died for us in our place gives us new life in Him. Paul addresses this argument in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.


So you see it is the faith, and an admitted faith, not any kind of empirical evidence or proof.



posted on Mar, 5 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


Dan Brown's book is rubbish. Jesus never travel to Britannia ( England ), nor marry Mary and became ancestor to King Arthur. Text

I certainly agree that Dan Brown is a novel writer and that most of what he postulates is not in accord with the scriptures. I also agree that Jesus did not wed any human but then there is some evidence that Jesus did travel to Britain perhaps many times. But His traveling to Britain was believed to be as a young boy and not included in His ministry.

Tradition as well as church history of Glastonbury, does insist that Joseph of Arimathea [the brother of the Joseph who wed Jesus' Mary], who was the uncle of Jesus, was one of the richest men in the Roman Empire. This Joseph of Arimathea was the same Joseph of Arimathea who claimed the body of his nephew Jesus according to scripture. Joseph was appointed as the representative of the Roman Empire in complete charge of providing the Empire with precious metals such as lead and copper. The wealth of lead in Britian's Somerset and Gloucestershire was the purpose of Joseph's many trips to Britian and it is evidenced that the young lad, Jesus, and mother Mary, accompanied Joseph numerous times to Glastonbury.

The entire history is very well documented and numerous papers as well as books are available to the layperson if you are interested. My favorite book on this subject is "St. Joseph Of Arimathea at Glastonbury" by Lionel Smithett Lewis. This is available on internet and I believe the cost is less than twenty five dollars. Well worth the price for those who are interested.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienVessel

What happened? Jesus survived. No thanks to the Christians, you all want him dead and bleeding impossible.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Yes the Christians want him dead because they claim that they are allowed to sin because Christ was a sacrifice and died for their sins. It is such a pitiful and pathetic escape goat - to claim that you have a free pass to sin because the greatest saint ever, the Son of God, was murdered. Christ did not ever say that. Once again they take the words of the Roman church over the words of Christ.

Or to claim that Christ is the only Son of God when Christ said We are the Same.

So basically, already they encourage people to sin and to believe that they themselves are not children of God.

Why can't they see that this is the devil hiding behind religion to take them what is False?

The Roman authority for the last 2,000 years did a great job outlawing and destroying the Jewish Christian history and bringing to the forefront their own doctrines and teachings. People will be shocked when they find out that the Romans lied all about Christ. Basically, the Romans thought of Christ what the writers of the Talmud thought, except while the writers of the Talmud did not hide their opinions, the Romans hide their truths and lie about their standings day in and day out.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienVessel

Yes, they say «he died for our [right to commit] sins [against Torah]» with reference to the worst enemy of Jesus we know of-- Saulus of Tarsos AKA False Prophet 666-- who pointed at Jesus as the 616 Sacrificial Beast as in the Abomination of Desolation. However David didn't say that, he said that «He [Jesus] died because BECAUSE OF our calamities and misdeeds» and that is due to idiomatic anachronism on behalf of the «Christians» -- and I know you know this, AlienVessel. Thank you! You are wiser than I thought, and one of the only people here understanding this!

edit on 15-3-2018 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienVessel
So you have to really figure out why you think the way you do.

Who are you to decide what is a lie about the Gospels and what is not? And if you believe one crazy thing with little or no evidence to prove it up, why would you not believe another thing with essentially the same amount of evidence?

I'm not saying anyone should. I'm just wondering why anyone would.
edit on 15-3-2018 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Who are you to decide what is a lie about the Gospels and what is not? And if you believe one crazy thing with little or no evidence to prove it up, why would you not believe another thing with essentially the same amount of evidence?

I'm not saying anyone should. I'm just wondering why anyone would.


I am a person who studied the bible, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Aramaic scriptures, the apocrypha scriptures, the Nazarene scriptures, the Ebionite scriptures, the Nag Hammadi library, the apostolic scriptures, the Sumerian tablets, and other ancient sources of history related to the time of the bible.

I have studied a lot of literature not to mention listened to many scholars lecture and read from many scholars writing about these subjects. That is what a person does to understand things - they study them. The way you phrased your question seemed like you believe it is unlikely for somebody to be intelligent upon subjects they study. It almost sounds like you were judging me. I hope you are not judging me, if you are than it doesn't bother me because I am powerless over whether a human being wants to be an ignorant fool and think what is not right in their brain.

That is the problem, you listen to satanist liars on the television and swear by what they say your whole life, rejecting anything that is alternative. But when somebody like me comes along who does years and years of study, you don't believe anything they say. You need to pay attention to the people you listen to, because they told you lies your whole life and you still believe them. But I know God is a God of TRUTH and therefore you will be put in your place eventually so it is not for me to stress about. Everybody who believes Christ was born of a virgin and walked on water is going to have to give an account to God as to why they chose to believe the bible, but the real sin is on the people who hid the truth and lied in the bible, so the person believing it is going to be in a small state of shock when they learn that the world was been controlled by satanist especially in religions.
edit on 16-3-2018 by AlienVessel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienVessel

so would you agree that Jesus and God are one in the same?




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join