Is the Pillar of Cloud in the Bible the same as cigar shaped U.F.O.'s today?

a reply to: cooperton

Sorry, I still don't understand what is meant by "blood curse".

a reply to: ArMaP

It's right there in the Bible.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Notice how God said between the woman's seed and not Adam's seed. It's very important that Jesus was born of a Virgin. What's the woman's seed?

The woman's seed is mitochondria DNA. God was giving us a way to be saved when he did genetic engineering with Adam.

Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Why did God carry out surgery on Adam if he's some magic being that rides around in clouds of smoke? You can see this exact procedure performed in surgery every day.

The blood curse comes through Adam which makes us all satan's seed. We're Born Again through the woman's seed(Christ) when we accept Him as our Savior.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Powerful Stuff!

I also find it amazing that mitochondria DNA is also the source for ATP.

Oxidative phosphorylation is the process in which ATP is formed as a result of the transfer of electrons from NADH or FADH 2 to O 2 by a series of electron carriers. This process, which takes place in mitochondria, is the major source of ATP in aerobic organisms

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Mitochondria are the energy factories of the cells. The energy currency for the work that animals must do is the energy-rich molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ... This ATP production by the mitochondria is done by the process of respiration, which in essence is the use of oxygen in a process which generates energy.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

In sexual reproduction, mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother; the mitochondria in mammalian sperm are usually destroyed by the egg cell after fertilization. Also, mitochondria are only in the sperm tail, which is used for propelling the sperm cells and sometimes the tail is lost during fertilization. In 1999 it was reported that paternal sperm mitochondria (containing mtDNA) are marked with ubiquitin to select them for later destruction inside the embryo.[33] Some in vitro fertilization techniques, particularly injecting a sperm into an oocyte, may interfere with this. The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables genealogical researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. (Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to determine the patrilineal history.)

en.wikipedia.org...

So again, the woman's seed (mitochondria DNA) is Jesus and all who follow Him and satan's seed is all non believers that will go into perdition with the fallen ones.

When you read the Bible from an extraterrestrial/extradimensional perspective, this is plain to see. The war in Heaven and the fall didn't just affect us spiritually but also in a biological way as well.

It's amazing that the Bible is telling us that God knew about mitochondria DNA and this is why Jesus had to be born of a Virgin. Mitochondria DNA was protected from Adam's sin which corrupted his genetic line.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

The Bible I have access to doesn't say it like that, it says something like this (translated from Portuguese):
"Then the Lord God made Adam fall into a heavy sleep; and while he slept took one of his ribs, whose location filled with meat".

PS: thanks for the detailed explanation.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Thanks and it's a solid theory but Jesus isn't a myth.

In fact, the evidence shows Jesus was a historical figure who rose from the dead.

There is no historical evidence of Jesus being supernatural and the historical evidence is vague.

originally posted by: neoholographic
1. We can't view the popularity of Jesus today to Jesus when he walked the earth. There was about 300 million people on earth at that time and Jesus came in contact with about .0001% or 3,000 people during his lifetime and most didn't know who he was. The point is, the death of Jesus wouldn't be known throughout the world. He would be seen as just another religious leader that died.

In 380 Rome made Christianity law, that is why it spread. In 313 it was only 4 of Rome while 1/2 of the entire Roman army was Mithrian (another mystery religion).

originally posted by: neoholographic
2. There were many groups back then popping up here and there but when their leader died, the group died out. The Followers of Jesus became more determined after his death. They were ready to die if they had to. Why? Jesus said he would be raised from the dead but if he wasn't raised from the dead, why did they become more determined to tell people about Jesus?

The same reason thousands of people were determined to spread any other religion. Because there are billions of followers of Krishna doesn't mean he is real. Christianity did not spread until 300 years later when Rome adopted it as a way to unite a divided Rome after the civil war.

originally posted by: neoholographic
3. You start to see the followers of Christ show up in the history books as a strange group that would die instead of turning from Jesus. People couldn't understand it because Jesus was dead. Why would these people become more determined and why are they willing to die for a guy that died?

There are martyrs in every religion and even many political movements. But you cannot use gospels as history, they are anonymous, written in a highly mythical style and as the synoptic problem points out they are up to 90% copied verbatim from the original gospel (Mark).

originally posted by: neoholographic
4. At this point, they were still a smaller group because you had to convert to Judaism first.

No, like all mystery religions they were cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

originally posted by: neoholographic
5. Then cam Saul who became Paul and changed everything. You have to ask again. Why would Saul, who had a good life as a Jew moving up the ranks and who persecuted Christians, risk death, jail and more for Jesus? Again, it makes no sens if Jesus is dead. Why Jesus?

Paul was against certain Greek speaking Christians who were anti-temple. Paul also knew nothing about the entire mythology of Jesus except that he had a "vision" of Jesus. Someone converting to a religion does not demonstrate it's reality.

originally posted by: neoholographic
6. Next, Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. Again, I think there's plenty of evidence that Jesus was a historical figure but was also God who rose from the dead.

Constantine needed a way to unify Rome and because there were some churches already set up he chose that religion. This has no bearing on it being true.

originally posted by: neoholographicIt makes no sense for the Disciples to become more empowered and more determined if Jesus said he would be raised from the dead but he didn't actually rise from the dead. A Good book to start with is The Case for Christ.

People become highly motivated by all sorts of false beliefs. The idea that this one time the beliefs were real is not likely. But what is written in the gospels about the disciples is not historical.

An actual biblical historian PhD covers the points made in Case for Christ, they are apologetics nonsense

www.richardcarrier.info...

originally posted by: neoholographic
Heaven is a place. If God rides around in magical clouds all day talking through puffs of smoke, why does he exist in a place? Why are their beings in this place? Why are there mansions in this place?

Jewish mythology and angelology included a celestial temple in the upper atmosphere so clouds, angels and chariots in the sky were part of their myths. They may have seen ufos as well but scripture is not people trying to describe events, it's people telling stories about their god. They were not writing history.

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's just that the term Alien has a negative connotation because of Professional debunkers and pseudoskeptics. It just mean from another place and that's not a bad thing.

I think the term alien has a bad name because people are too quick to jump on every ridiculous ufo case. With Linda M Howe reporting "a source" told her the moon is an alien monitoring device and Lazar flying around in alien ships people are tired of hoaxes and "journalists" taking advantage of ufo enthusiasts. Most skeptics are not really skeptics, they just don't believe stuff with crappy evidence.

a reply to: joelr

A few points you made makes no sense at all. You said:

Paul was against certain Greek speaking Christians who were anti-temple. Paul also knew nothing about the entire mythology of Jesus except that he had a "vision" of Jesus. Someone converting to a religion does not demonstrate it's reality.

This makes no sense. Paul changed his life for the worse and went through hardship for Jesus. The fact that he did this lends weight to the experience he had being true. Now, you can debate what happened but you can't debate that the experience didn't change him in such a profound way that he went from persecuting Christians to one of it's leading advocates.

This is just common sense.

If tomorrow, Richard Dawkins said I had this profound experience with God and I know God exists, that would have to be taken seriously because of Dawkins history of being a hardcore atheist. By itself, it's not evidence that God exists by itself but it gives weight to the position that God exists.

If this happened, Dawkins would be interviewed everywhere and there would be thousands of atheist and agnostics who will strongly rethink their position. They will say, wait a minute, this guy was the poster boy for atheism and now he can't stop talking about God because of his profound experience.

Constantine needed a way to unify Rome and because there were some churches already set up he chose that religion. This has no bearing on it being true.

Here, you contradict yourself. Why would Constantine need to see Jesus to unify Rome when you say half of the Army was into Mithrian.

In 380 Rome made Christianity law, that is why it spread. In 313 it was only 4 of Rome while 1/2 of the entire Roman army was Mithrian (another mystery religion).

Rome was all about might. If Constantine was just making it up and he wanted to unify Rome, he would have said he saw Mithra and got unity from the other half of the army.

There was no benefit for Constantine becoming a Christian when half of his Army was Mithrian. You destroy your own argument.

Also, why did Constantine get baptized just before his death in 337 if he just did this to unify Rome? Why did Constantine build all of these Churches when half of his army was Mithrian according to you?

He built churches in Rome including the Church of St. Peter, he built churches in the Holy Land, most notably the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, and he built churches in his newly-constructed capital of Constantinople.

smarthistory.org...

Again, why do all this for Christianity when you say it was just to unify Rome. Why didn't he do all of this and more for Mithra because half of his army practiced Mithraism? You said:

Jewish mythology and angelology included a celestial temple in the upper atmosphere so clouds, angels and chariots in the sky were part of their myths. They may have seen ufos as well but scripture is not people trying to describe events, it's people telling stories about their god. They were not writing history.

This makes no sense based on what they saw and experienced. We know the Exodus happened. There were several of them that occurred with Hyksos, Hittites and Canaanites who occupied the northern part of Egypt at one time or another. You also had many Hebrews in that mix and today you have Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews which are three prominent culturally and geographically distinct Jewish groups.

Also, the Bible is clearly describing an interaction between this group of Israelite's and extradimensional/extraterrestrial beings. When NASA Engineer Josef Blumrich saw the description in Ezekiel, he said this:

My own involvement in the subject of extraterrestrial visitors began with a vehemently negative attitude. Having worked as an aeronautical engineer since 1934—first in the design and analysis of aircraft, then for the past fifteen years in the design and development of both launching vehicles and spacecraft—I was firmly entrenched in the camp of those who declare visits from outer space to be an impossibility.

It was in this frame of mind that I began to read Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? His claim that the prophet Ezekiel had encounters with spaceships prompted me to read the biblical book of Ezekiel carefully with the intention of proving von Däniken wrong. By the time I had got to verse 7 of the very first chapter, however, I found myself interpreting a description of the landings legs of some kind of flying vehicle: "Their legs were straight. and the soles of their feet were round and they sparkled like burnished bronze." Having designed and tested such structures myself, I could not deny that it was possible to read in this a direct, yet simple, technical description.

The contrast of that evidently clear passage with the quite hazy pictures sketched by the rest of the chapter made me realize that the prophet could not have known what it was he had seen, or could not have understood it. I realize the necessary consequences of this: the prophet could only describe his encounters with space vehicles and their crews in the terms available to him—with words and comparisons familiar to him and his contemporaries. So I began taking Ezekiel seriously, in an engineering sense.

www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com...

Finally, I have to say it's funny reading the desperation of some in this thread. You sound as if you don't believe in God but then you try to dictate what God can or can't be.

You say he must be a fantasy or myth that rides around in magical puffs of smoke. You do this because reading the Bible from the point of view of an extradimensional/extraterrestrial visitation makes too much sense and makes the Bible all too real.

originally posted by: neoholographic
If tomorrow, Richard Dawkins said I had this profound experience with God and I know God exists, that would have to be taken seriously because of Dawkins history of being a hardcore atheist. By itself, it's not evidence that God exists by itself but it gives weight to the position that God exists.

If this happened, Dawkins would be interviewed everywhere and there would be thousands of atheist and agnostics who will strongly rethink their position. They will say, wait a minute, this guy was the poster boy for atheism and now he can't stop talking about God because of his profound experience.

If that happened I couldn't care less. To me, being an atheist is my personal decision , based on what I think, not based on what someone else says.

And no, it wouldn't give any more or less weight to the position that god(s) exist, as it would be just another person saying they had experienced something.

originally posted by: neoholographicA few points you made makes no sense at all. You said:


This makes no sense. Paul changed his life for the worse and went through hardship for Jesus. The fact that he did this lends weight to the experience he had being true. Now, you can debate what happened but you can't debate that the experience didn't change him in such a profound way that he went from persecuting Christians to one of it's leading advocates.

This is just common sense.

If tomorrow, Richard Dawkins said I had this profound experience with God and I know God exists, that would have to be taken seriously because of Dawkins history of being a hardcore atheist. By itself, it's not evidence that God exists by itself but it gives weight to the position that God exists.

No, it's not like Dawkins, a modern scientist, converting. Paul already believed in supernatural things and simply converted to a mystery religion like many others were in the region. It was a much more appealing model and the Jewish version was the latest.
Someone converting to a different religion is fairly common, there are many modern christians who convert to Muslim and vice versa.

Even if Dawkins converted how would you know he hadn't had a vision/hallucination like Paul? Or was playing a prank. It would require evidence, not personal anecdotes. Dawkins would need to demonstrate evidence.

originally posted by: neoholographicConstantine needed a way to unify Rome and because there were some churches already set up he chose that religion.

Here, you contradict yourself. Why would Constantine need to see Jesus to unify Rome when you say half of the Army was into Mithrian.

Half the Roman army was Mithrian and there were several other religions practiced in Rome in 3AD. Constantine practiced several religions but felt Christianity would serve the need to best unify Rome after the civil war. At the time only a small percent was Christian but they had some churches set up.

"Christianity spread especially in the eastern parts of the Empire and beyond its border; in the west it was at first relatively limited, but significant Christian communities emerged in Rome, Carthage, and other urban centers, becoming by the end of the 3rd century, the dominant faith in some of them. Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates.[19] According to Will Durant, the Christian Church prevailed over paganism because it offered a much more attractive doctrine and because the church leaders addressed human needs better than their rivals."
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: neoholographic
Rome was all about might. If Constantine was just making it up and he wanted to unify Rome, he would have said he saw Mithra and got unity from the other half of the army.

There was no benefit for Constantine becoming a Christian when half of his Army was Mithrian. You destroy your own argument.

Huh? This is just history?

"At some time around the first century, the members of the Roman military began to adopt the mystery cult of Mithraism;
Mithraism wasn't exclusive - it was possible and common to follow Mithraism and other cults simultaneously. It eventually became popular within Rome itself, gradually gaining members among the more aristocratic classes, and eventually counting some of the Roman senators as adherents; according to the Augustan History, even the emperor Commodus was a member. Although, for reasons currently unknown, Mithraism completely excluded women, by the third century it had gained a wide following; there are over 100 surviving remains of temples to Mithras, 8 in Rome itself, and 18 in Ostia (Rome's main port), with Rome having over 300 associated Mithraic monuments.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: neoholographic

Again, why do all this for Christianity when you say it was just to unify Rome. Why didn't he do all of this and more for Mithra because half of his army practiced Mithraism?

"Constantine promoted orthodoxy in Christian doctrine, so that Christianity might become a unitary force, rather than divisive. "

originally posted by: neoholographic

This makes no sense based on what they saw and experienced. We know the Exodus happened.

Exodus has no evidence and is likely a myth.
William Denver, worlds leading biblical archeologist:www.pbs.org...
"Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?

We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story."

en.wikipedia.org...
Moses (/ˈmoʊzɪz, -zɪs/)[2][Note 1] was a prophet according to the teachings of the Abrahamic religions. Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person

originally posted by: neoholographicFinally, I have to say it's funny reading the desperation of some in this thread. You sound as if you don't believe in God but then you try to dictate what God can or can't be.

You say he must be a fantasy or myth that rides around in magical puffs of smoke. You do this because reading the Bible from the point of view of an extradimensional/extraterrestrial visitation makes too much sense and makes the Bible all too real.

Then you've misread my intentions. Scripture is mythic stories of god, same as the Persians, Thratians, Syrians, ...whomever. I don't think any of the other mystery religions or earlier Egyptian/Israelites myths has anything to do with ufos.
Like Denver says:
"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that."
Taking poetic scripture literal is a mistake, weather you propose demi-gods or aliens, it's cultural mythology designed to teach how to live. Bronze age people needed this structure.
But the Israelites has a cosmology of angels and temples and all this stuff in the sky reflects that. They didn't need to see ufos, to them the stars, lightning, the sun, it was all divine manifestations. They may have seen alien ships occasionally as well but that isn't what religious myths are about.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: neoholographic
If tomorrow, Richard Dawkins said I had this profound experience with God and I know God exists, that would have to be taken seriously because of Dawkins history of being a hardcore atheist. By itself, it's not evidence that God exists by itself but it gives weight to the position that God exists.

If this happened, Dawkins would be interviewed everywhere and there would be thousands of atheist and agnostics who will strongly rethink their position. They will say, wait a minute, this guy was the poster boy for atheism and now he can't stop talking about God because of his profound experience.

If that happened I couldn't care less. To me, being an atheist is my personal decision , based on what I think, not based on what someone else says.

And no, it wouldn't give any more or less weight to the position that god(s) exist, as it would be just another person saying they had experienced something.

Sure, but being very stubborn can do that. I have a nephew who was so stubborn he would deny it if you told him the sky is blue, just to be contrary. This is because he believes only what he thinks or decides to think, never what anyone else tells him.
And that is fine, because everyone has that choice.

a reply to: joelr

A post filled with opinions that make no sense. You haven't refuted anything I've said, you just posted the opinion that you believe everything in the Bible must be a myth. I laid out evidence throughout the thread and you haven't responded to anything. You said:

No, it's not like Dawkins, a modern scientist, converting. Paul already believed in supernatural things and simply converted to a mystery religion like many others were in the region. It was a much more appealing model and the Jewish version was the latest. Someone converting to a different religion is fairly common, there are many modern christians who convert to Muslim and vice versa.

This makes no sense.

This is my point. In these arguments, you just throw common sense out of the window.

No, it's not common that someone who persecutes Christians and that's moving up the ladder in the power structure of the day converts to the very religion he/she is prosecuting. Paul went from prosecuting and having Christians killed to one of Christianity's main proponents.

So you have to use common sense and give weight to this conversion because he goes from a comfortable life to one on the run.

If Dawkins or Bill Maher came out today and said they're converting because they had a profound experience and they saw God, it wouldn't be something common. This is because of their positions as hardcore and well known atheist.

Of course, you will not grasp this but most people will. All it takes is a little common sense.

You then said this which makes no sense:

Half the Roman army was Mithrian and there were several other religions practiced in Rome in 3AD. Constantine practiced several religions but felt Christianity would serve the need to best unify Rome after the civil war. At the time only a small percent was Christian but they had some churches set up.

This is just pure nonsense.

Half of his Army was Mithrian but he chose this religion that was only a small percent of the empire to unify the empire? That's just nutty. If he's just making things up, he could just say he saw Mithra and unify the country even faster. Why would converting to Christianity accomplish this?

So Constantine is going to offend half of his army after a civil war by converting to a religion that makes up a small percent of Rome? Really?? This your logic?

Like I said, your argument is all over the place. Constantine's conversion speaks volumes and if it was just for unity, why did he spend so much on Christian Churches? Why didn't he spend even more money supporting Mithraism if half of his soldiers supported Mithra and it was so popular?

On one hand, you say Mithraism was so popular and everyone followed it from soldiers to Senators but in order to unify the Country, Constantine picks out this small religion for no reason at all and elevates it to the highest status in order to unify Rome!

This is just utter nonsense. The reason you say this is because you can't explain why Constantine did this. The best explanation is that he had a profound experience with Christianity.

This is like a Muslim leader of a State saying, I'm going to elevate Druze in order to unify the Middle East. Do you think this would unify anything? It would cause chaos because the majority of people follow Sunni or Shiite Islam.

Why would anyone with any common sense think that offending the majority of your population to elevate a small religion is something to "unify the Country?"

Let's talk some facts that refute your wild assertions.

During a period of civil war, Constantine defended his position against different Roman factions, including Maxentius, Maximian's son. In 312, Constantine fought in Italy, meeting Maxentius and his forces at the Milvian Bridge on the Tiber River. Accounts of Constantine's life state that, following a vision, he had ordered a Christian symbol to be painted on his soldiers' shields. Under this emblem, Constantine was successful in battle and entered Rome.

This just destroys your silly notion. You said Constantine converted to unify Rome after a civil war. He was in a civil war when he converted!

Also, why would he do this in the middle of a war? You said half of his soldiers followed Mithraism. So he's going to order a Christian symbol to be painted on his soldiers shields in the middle of a war in order to bring unity?

This is my point. Your argument is devoid of any common sense.

He's going to order his soldiers to do this in the middle of a civil war when Christianity was illegal at the time? This is a unifying move?

Constantine now became the Western Roman emperor. He soon used his power to address the status of Christians, issuing the Edict of Milan in 313. This proclamation legalized Christianity and allowed for freedom of worship throughout the empire.

Again, you said Christians made up a small percentage of Rome. HOW IS TAKING A SMALL AND ILLEGAL RELIGION AND ELEVATING IT IN THE FACE OF YOUR SOLDIERS MITHRAISM UNIFYING??

It's just a silly argument.

Constantine was in Helenopolis, planning a campaign against Persia, when he fell ill. He set out to return to Constantinople, but grew worse and was forced to halt his journey. He had delayed his baptism—a common practice at the time—but now underwent the rite. Constantine died on May 22, 337, in Ancyrona, near Nicomedia, Bithynia (modern day ?zmit, Turkey), at the approximate age of 57. He was buried in Constantinople at the church of the Apostles.

www.biography.com...

Why get baptized if he was just doing it to unify the Country? Why spend all of this money on Christian Churches and not even more money and time on Mithraism and other religions that were more popular at the time? Why waste time on the Council of Nicaea in 325? Why worry about the Divinity of Jesus? Why didn't he do this with Mithra and all of the other religions that were more popular throughout Rome? Why do all this for a small and illegal religion in the middle of a civil war?

Please respond to my questions. I remember debating you before and you come up with these long winded posts that say nothing.

Lastly, I think it's odd how you and others go out of your way to say we must read the Bible as myths and fantasy and we can't read it in any other way. Who are you to dictate to others how they must read the Bible?

This clearly shows the desperation of some on this thread. When you read the Bible as an extradimensional/extraterrestrial visitation, it removes any myths or fantasy and that's why you have these atheist or agnostics telling people YOU MUST read it as a fantasy.

You haven't responded to any evidence I've presented. You've also been wrong about history and Constantine. If everything is just fantasy and myth, why did a NASA Engineer read Ezekiel and say the Author was trying to describe modern technology in the language of the day?

My own involvement in the subject of extraterrestrial visitors began with a vehemently negative attitude. Having worked as an aeronautical engineer since 1934—first in the design and analysis of aircraft, then for the past fifteen years in the design and development of both launching vehicles and spacecraft—I was firmly entrenched in the camp of those who declare visits from outer space to be an impossibility.

a reply to: joelr

It was in this frame of mind that I began to read Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? His claim that the prophet Ezekiel had encounters with spaceships prompted me to read the biblical book of Ezekiel carefully with the intention of proving von Däniken wrong. By the time I had got to verse 7 of the very first chapter, however, I found myself interpreting a description of the landings legs of some kind of flying vehicle: "Their legs were straight. and the soles of their feet were round and they sparkled like burnished bronze." Having designed and tested such structures myself, I could not deny that it was possible to read in this a direct, yet simple, technical description.

The contrast of that evidently clear passage with the quite hazy pictures sketched by the rest of the chapter made me realize that the prophet could not have known what it was he had seen, or could not have understood it. I realize the necessary consequences of this: the prophet could only describe his encounters with space vehicles and their crews in the terms available to him—with words and comparisons familiar to him and his contemporaries. So I began taking Ezekiel seriously, in an engineering sense.

www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com...

You haven't responded to any of the evidence I've laid out in the thread. I suggest you read the thread and then respond so I don't have to keep repeating things that I already posted.

Answer these questions please:

Why get baptized if he was just doing it to unify the Country? Why spend all of this money on Christian Churches and not even more money and time on Mithraism and other religions that were more popular at the time? Why waste time on the Council of Nicaea in 325? Why worry about the Divinity of Jesus? Why didn't he do this with Mithra and all of the other religions that were more popular throughout Rome? Why do all this for a small and illegal religion in the middle of a civil war?

You have made some absurd claims now please back up your assertions. I don't want to hear long winded opinion. Address the evidence I've listed throughout the thread that supports an extraterrestrial/extradimensional interpretation. I don't want to hear your opinion that we must read the Bible as myth and fantasy.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

That would still be a reaction to someone else's opinion and not his own opinion.

People that always contradict what other people say are as much like a sheep like those that follow whatever some people say, as they are both acting based on what someone else said/done and not on their own ideas.

a reply to: neoholographic

Please read your messages.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: joelr

A post filled with opinions that make no sense. You haven't refuted anything I've said, you just posted the opinion that you believe everything in the Bible must be a myth. I laid out evidence throughout the thread and you haven't responded to anything. You said:

I responded to everything with references to scholarship? What are you talking about?

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is my point. In these arguments, you just throw common sense out of the window.

No, it's not common that someone who persecutes Christians and that's moving up the ladder in the power structure of the day converts to the very religion he/she is prosecuting. Paul went from prosecuting and having Christians killed to one of Christianity's main proponents.

One person who converted to a religion is not even close to equalling the religion is true. Millions of atheists have also converted to Hindu, Muslim and thousands of other religions. It is not evidence.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Half of his Army was Mithrian but he chose this religion that was only a small percent of the empire to unify the empire? That's just nutty. If he's just making things up, he could just say he saw Mithra and unify the country even faster. Why would converting to Christianity accomplish this?

So Constantine is going to offend half of his army after a civil war by converting to a religion that makes up a small percent of Rome? Really?? This your logic?

What do you mean "my logic"? I'm only using historical sources?
Mithriasim in the 3rd century -
en.wikipedia.org...
"Mithraism reached the apogee of its popularity during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, spreading at an "astonishing" rate at the same period when the worship of Sol Invictus was incorporated into the state-sponsored cults.["

It's just known history that in the 3rd century about 1/2 of the military were Mithrian?
Constantine set up the Council of Nicea in 313 which established Christianity as a religion that was allowed in Rome.In 380 it became law. At the beginning of the 3rd century Rome was about 5% Christian. These are historical facts?
How exactly am I "all over the place" when I'm just explaining history?

Here:
en.wikipedia.org...
"Constantine's position on the religions traditionally practiced in Rome evolved during his reign. In fact, his coinage and other official motifs, until 325, had affiliated him with the pagan cult of Sol Invictus. "

"Whether Constantine sincerely converted to Christianity or remained loyal to Paganism is still a matter of debate among historians "

So you speculations about some experience Constantine had are pure speculations. If you bother to read some history you will see it was likely a political move.

originally posted by: neoholographic

This just destroys your silly notion. You said Constantine converted to unify Rome after a civil war. He was in a civil war when he converted!

Also, why would he do this in the middle of a war? You said half of his soldiers followed Mithraism. So he's going to order a Christian symbol to be painted on his soldiers shields in the middle of a war in order to bring unity?

This is my point. Your argument is devoid of any common sense.

en.wikipedia.org...
"Professor Emeritus of History at the University at Albany, SUNY, Constantine's conversion was just another instrument of realpolitik in his hands meant to serve his political interest in keeping the Empire united under his control:

The prevailing spirit of Constantine's government was one of conservatorism. His conversion to and support of Christianity produced fewer innovations than one might have expected; indeed they served an entirely conservative end, the preservation and continuation of the Empire. "

Yes after a battle he decided the Christian god was the reason for his success, so?

"It is possible (but not certain) that Constantine's mother, Helena, exposed him to Christianity; in any case he only declared himself a Christian after issuing the Edict of Milan.[13][14] Writing to Christians, Constantine made clear that he believed that he owed his successes to the protection of that High God alone"

Read the history, everything I've said is correct.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: neoholographic

Again, you said Christians made up a small percentage of Rome. HOW IS TAKING A SMALL AND ILLEGAL RELIGION AND ELEVATING IT IN THE FACE OF YOUR SOLDIERS MITHRAISM UNIFYING??

"Most influential people in the empire, however, especially high military officials, had not been converted to Christianity and still participated in the traditional religions of Rome; Constantine's rule exhibited at least a willingness to appease these factions. The Roman coins minted up to eight years after the battle still bore the images of Roman gods.[16] The monuments he first commissioned, such as the Arch of Constantine, contained no reference to Christianity.[15][17]"

Yes, I can find the quote that Christianity was about 5% of Rome in 3AD.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Why get baptized if he was just doing it to unify the Country? Why spend all of this money on Christian Churches and not even more money and time on Mithraism and other religions that were more popular at the time?
Please respond to my questions. I remember debating you before and you come up with these long winded posts that say nothing.

Because he converted to Christianity? An emperor converting gives zero proof of a religion? When some other Emperor converted to Mithriasim did that mean that was real also? There is no proof that the Christian mythology is true in any of this Constantine stuff.

originally posted by: neoholographicLastly, I think it's odd how you and others go out of your way to say we must read the Bible as myths and fantasy and we can't read it in any other way. Who are you to dictate to others how they must read the Bible?

I never said that. Believe what you like. There is just no evidence that it's anything but myth.

originally posted by: neoholographicThis clearly shows the desperation of some on this thread. When you read the Bible as an extradimensional/extraterrestrial visitation, it removes any myths or fantasy and that's why you have these atheist or agnostics telling people YOU MUST read it as a fantasy.

I don't care what atheist/agnostics say. I'm going by biblical historicity PhDs.

originally posted by: neoholographicYou haven't responded to any evidence I've presented. You've also been wrong about history and Constantine. why did a NASA Engineer read Ezekiel and say the Author was trying to describe modern technology in the language of the day?

Everything I've said about Constantine I've sourced from historical text. LOL, one NASA guy writes a highly criticized book and you use it for evidence?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: joelr

It was in this frame of mind that I began to read Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? His claim that the prophet Ezekiel had encounters with spaceships prompted me to read the biblical book of Ezekiel carefully with the

You haven't responded to any of the evidence I've laid out in the thread. I suggest you read the thread and then respond so I don't have to keep repeating things that I already posted.

Yet no other NASA engineers back this, did you think to also weigh that fact?

en.wikipedia.org...
""Blumrich doctors up his Biblical quotes just a smidgen to make them conform a little better to his spaceship interpretation", and "The Spaceships of Ezekiel, in all honesty, can only be described as an extreme form of rationalisation, with a good supply of technical jargon, charts, and diagrams, carefully designed to impress the general reader. The book does contain a good collection of impressive drawings which prove nothing more than that whoever prepared them is a good draughtsman." Jerome Clark wrote that Blumrich "offered a creative but misplaced effort to translate the metaphorical biblical account into a properly engineered spacecraft."["

Also:

In Ezekiel 29:16-21, God claims that Egypt will be conquered by Nebuchadnezzar:
In Ezekiel 29:1-15, God states that Egypt will be made into a desolate wasteland:
In Ezekiel 26:1-21, God states that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer, sack, and completely destroy the city of Tyrus (Tyre) and that Tyre's land would never be built upon again:

Those didn't happen.

Biblical prophecies are vague and no better than prophecies from every religious text or Nostradamus and so on…


Even if Ezikel was having some vision or saw a ufo, cool, so what? The religious text is still myth? Savior gods in mystery religions were a myth going around civilizations in the region.

originally posted by: neoholographicAnswer these questions please:

Why get baptized if he was just doing it to unify the Country? Why spend all of this money on Christian Churches and not even more money and time on Mithraism and other religions that were more popular at the time? Why waste time on the Council of Nicaea in 325? Why worry about the Divinity of Jesus? Why didn't he do this with Mithra and all of the other religions that were more popular throughout Rome? Why do all this for a small and illegal religion in the middle of a civil war?

You're asking as if an emperor converting to a religion 300 years after it's origin has any bearing on if it's real. It doesn't.
Constantine also believed in the Mithrias Bull god. This is what we actually know anyways:

"Historians remain uncertain about Constantine's reasons for favoring Christianity, and theologians and historians have often argued about which form of early Christianity he subscribed to. There is no consensus among scholars as to whether he adopted his mother Helena's Christianity in his youth, or, as claimed by Eusebius of Caesarea, encouraged her to convert to the faith he had adopted himself.

Constantine ruled the Roman Empire as sole emperor for much of his reign. Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the Imperial cult"

en.wikipedia.org...

So there you go, it's unknown and the beliefs of one Emperor has zero bearing on the truth of the beliefs. Everyone believed in some myth in the bronze age?

originally posted by: neoholographicYou have made some absurd claims now please back up your assertions. I don't want to hear long winded opinion. Address the evidence I've listed throughout the thread that supports an extraterrestrial/extradimensional interpretation. I don't want to hear your opinion that we must read the Bible as myth and fantasy.

You don't want long winded….says the person who posts a double response? Of mostly judge-y ad-homs (absurd, no sense, blah blah..)
You can read the Bible as real or Harry Potter or anything else. I do not care.
I'm saying there is no evidence to support any religious mythology as real history.

We know the mythology has been taken from other similar mystery religions and older mythology which demonstrated these are not tales of ufo visits but myths turning into newer myths.

I could read Greek stories of Zeus and also speculate ufos may have played a role. It doesn't mean Zeus is any more real? Someone who believed in a religion back then and saw a ufo would probably believe it were an angel or whatever deities roamed in the sky in their mythology.

This is the basis for all of the phenomena in the sky in scripture, the cosmology of the early Hebrews:
en.wikipedia.org...

So does this mean you believe there are also monsters in the sky?

"The cosmic sea is the home of monsters which God conquers: "By his power he stilled the sea, by his understanding he smote Rahab!" (Job 26:12f).[26] (Rahab is an exclusively Hebrew sea-monster; others, including Leviathan and the tannin, or dragons, are found in Ugaritic texts; it is not entirely clear whether they are identical with Sea or are Sea's helpers).[27] The "bronze sea" which stood in the forecourt of the Temple in Jerusalem probably corresponds to the "sea" in Babylonian temples, representing the apsu, the cosmic ocean.[28]"


Do you also think there is a large bowl over the Earth?

"The raqia or firmament - the visible sky - was a solid inverted bowl over the Earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it.[32] Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had "windows" to allow them in - the waters for Noah's flood entered when the "windows of heaven" were opened.[33] Heaven extended down to and was coterminous with (i.e. it touched) the farthest edges of the Earth (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:32);[34] humans looking up from Earth saw the floor of heaven, "

reading through the cosmogony, the several layers of heavens and all this stuff above us I'm not seeing anything that seems ufo related. It's all mythic cosmology. Basic?ally EVERYTHING they came up with is not really there. But somehow you think stuff was there and it was alien craft?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: joelr


So Constantine is going to offend half of his army after a civil war by converting to a religion that makes up a small percent of Rome? Really?? This your logic?

Like I said, your argument is all over the place. Constantine's conversion speaks volumes and if it was just for unity, why did he spend so much on Christian Churches? Why didn't he spend even more money supporting Mithraism if half of his soldiers supported Mithra and it was so popular?


Why would anyone with any common sense think that offending the majority of your population to elevate a small religion is something to "unify the Country?"

L
This just destroys your silly notion. You said Constantine converted to unify Rome after a civil war. He was in a civil war when he converted!

Also, why would he do this in the middle of a war? You said half of his soldiers followed Mithraism. So he's going to order a Christian symbol to be painted on his soldiers shields in the middle of a war in order to bring unity?

Again, you said Christians made up a small percentage of Rome. HOW IS TAKING A SMALL AND ILLEGAL RELIGION AND ELEVATING IT IN THE FACE OF YOUR SOLDIERS MITHRAISM UNIFYING??

It's just a silly argument.

[

And yet that's what happened. I'm using historical sources not logic. Here you go….5% of Rome in 313


"Constantine I was exposed to Christianity in his youth, and throughout his life his support for the religion grew, culminating in baptism on his deathbed.[150] During his reign, state-sanctioned persecution of Christians was ended with the Edict of Toleration in 311 and the Edict of Milan in 313……...At that point, Christianity was still a minority belief, comprising perhaps only five percent of the Roman population"

source - Chidester, David (2000). Christianity: A Global History. HarperOne. p. 91.



en.wikipedia.org...-Nicene_period
subsection -Early Christianity
"Spread and acceptance in Roman Empire"


Just like I said, in 313 Christianity was 5% of Rome………Boom. I know this doesn't matter because the Constantine thing has no bearing on ufo relation or the truth of a rising demigod but I found the 5% quote and you couldn't stop insisting this notion "silly" or nonsensical which was weird because you were going on assumption rather than fact?

a reply to: joelr

Most of your long winded post is about Constantine and you refute nothing I've said in this thread.

You basically quote people who asks questions about what Constantine believed but they have no clue. I can play the same game with more quotes but this thread isn't about Constantine. Here's one of your quotes that sums it up. You could have saved the long winded rambling and just said you don't know.

"Historians remain uncertain about Constantine's reasons for favoring Christianity, and theologians and historians have often argued about which form of early Christianity he subscribed to. There is no consensus among scholars as to whether he adopted his mother Helena's Christianity in his youth, or, as claimed by Eusebius of Caesarea, encouraged her to convert to the faith he had adopted himself.

My point proven. You come into the thread acting like you do know but you don't. Let me repeat your quote.

There is no consensus among scholars

You said something totally different. I showed that it was illogical and made no sense. First you said Christianity was 10% of the population now it's 5%. It just makes what you said sound ridiculous. You said Constantine elevated this illegal religion that only made up 5% of the population in order to unify the Country.

That's just nonsense. When half of his Army followed Mithraism, he chooses to elevate an illegal religion that only makes up 5% of the population? Like I said:

This is like a Muslim leader of a State saying, I'm going to elevate Druze in order to unify the Middle East. Do you think this would unify anything? It would cause chaos because the majority of people follow Sunni or Shiite Islam.

Like I said, it's devoid of any common sense. Where's all the money spent on Mithraism and all of the other more popular religions in Rome?

Here's the important point:



Christianity has become the largest Religion in the world.

First, if Jesus died, why did the Disciples become more determined to spread Christianity? Many religions came and went after the leader died. Not so with Christianity.

Next, the conversion of Saul to Paul. Again, why Christianity? Why go from someone persecuting and having Christians killed to risking your life for Christ?

Lastly, why Constantine? Why did Constantine have such a profound experience with Christianity that he had his soldiers draw Christian symbols on their shields in the middle of a civil war. An illegal religion at the time and it only made up 5% of the population at the time.

Why Christianity? When Jesus was killed,why didn't it just flame out? Jesus was not well known. It was a world of 300 million people and Jesus probably came into contact with about 3,000 people and direct contact with even less people. How did this become the biggest religion in the world?

Why didn't Paul have a vision of Jupiter or Constantine have a vision of Mithra since you say Mithra was extremely popular with his troops?

Wouldn't it make more sense to motivate your troops in a civil war to say I saw a sign from Mithra? Half of his Army followed Mithra. Like I said, your argument is devoid of basic common sense.

Enough about Constantine. Your argument in that regard makes no sense.

Regarding Blumrich and the Spaceships of Ezekiel, your link ended like this.

Jerome Clark wrote that Blumrich "offered a creative but misplaced effort to translate the metaphorical biblical account into a properly engineered spacecraft.

Exactly how was it misplaced? Give me the exact quotes from the book or are you just quote mining without reading the source material. How can you or anyone tell me or anyone else that they must read the Bible as metaphors or myths?

This just shows me that the extradimensional/extraterrestrial visitation in the Bible really scares some people. You desperately want everyone to read the Bible according to your point of view. Who are you to dictate to others how they must interpret scripture? You said:

I could read Greek stories of Zeus and also speculate ufos may have played a role. It doesn't mean Zeus is any more real? Someone who believed in a religion back then and saw a ufo would probably believe it were an angel or whatever deities roamed in the sky in their mythology.

Again wrong. This wasn't about deities roaming in the sky. This was about a clear interaction with the pillar in the cloud.

Exodus 24:18 - And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

This wasn't something Moses saw in the sky. The vehicle carried Moses into the mountains. There's no basis to say some magic cloud magically transported Moses into the mountains. There's no reason to read this as some myth. It only makes sense if something carried Moses into the mountains like the verse says.

Exodus 40:34 and 35 - Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 35. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

Again, you said:

Someone who believed in a religion back then and saw a ufo would probably believe it were an angel or whatever deities roamed in the sky in their mythology.

This wasn't something that just roamed in the sky.

The cloud covered the tent of congregation and they couldn't go into the tent because the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. This isn't something just roaming in the sky but's directly interacting with them.

Exodus 14:19 And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:

Again, not something roaming in the sky. The pillar of the cloud was in front of them to a position behind them to separate them from Egypt. What can hover in front of them then move behind them.

Exodus 33:9 And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses.

The pillar wasn't something they just saw in the sky. The cloudy pillar descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle.

Exodus 40:34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Exodus 40:35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

The cloud hovered over the tent and Moses couldn't go inside because whatever it was powering the cloud filled the tabernacle. This wasn't something roaming in the sky as you said.

I can go on and on with examples.

You're making an argument that makes no sense. You're saying I can only read these things as myths and fantasy because it's your point of view.

This silly argument shows me that some people are just desperate because of their belief. They want everyone to read the Bible as myth and fantasy because you have deluded yourself into thinking this way.

It's just asinine for you to say how I must read the Bible.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's the important point:

Christianity has become the largest Religion in the world.

First, if Jesus died, why did the Disciples become more determined to spread Christianity? Many religions came and went after the leader died. Not so with Christianity.

Next, the conversion of Saul to Paul. Again, why Christianity? Why go from someone persecuting and having Christians killed to risking your life for Christ?

Lastly, why Constantine? Why did Constantine have such a profound experience with Christianity that he had his soldiers draw Christian symbols on their shields in the middle of a civil war. An illegal religion at the time and it only made up 5% of the population at the time.

Why Christianity? When Jesus was killed,why didn't it just flame out? Jesus was not well known. It was a world of 300 million people and Jesus probably came into contact with about 3,000 people and direct contact with even less people. How did this become the biggest religion in the world?

Why didn't Paul have a vision of Jupiter or Constantine have a vision of Mithra since you say Mithra was extremely popular with his troops?

Yes, Christianity is the most popular religion on Earth, but what's that supposed to mean?

What do you think is the reason for Christianity's popularity?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: joelr

Most of your long winded post is about Constantine and you refute nothing I've said in this thread.

No, I refuted the 5% fact, that we don't fully understand Constantines conversion and every other fact you denied that I demonstrated was historical. You keep saying it doesn't make sense even in this thread. But it's still history.

originally posted by: neoholographicYou basically quote people who asks questions about what Constantine believed but they have no clue.this thread isn't about Constantine. Here's one of your quotes that sums it up.

The historical truth is we do not know. Your truth was trying to say Constantine "must" have has some amazing experience. You also insisted Rome was much more Christian than it was, you even shouted and said it made no sense.
Yet I've shown you were wrong, Christianity was indeed 5% of Rome and we do not understand the conversion however actual historians suggest political motivations (I posted quotes to show this).
I have completely destroyed all your points, deal with it like a man and stop whining and denying. You did not believe Christianity could possible be only 5% on Rome in 3AD. You were wrong.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I showed that it was illogical and made no sense. First you said Christianity was 10% of the population now it's 5%.You said Constantine elevated this illegal religion that only made up 5% of the population in order to unify the Country.

5% is actually better for my point?

originally posted by: neoholographicThat's just nonsense. When half of his Army followed Mithraism, he chooses to elevate an illegal religion that only makes up 5% of the population? Like I said:


Like I said, it's devoid of any common sense. Where's all the money spent on Mithraism and all of the other more popular religions in Rome?

Wait, now you understand the Christianity was 5% of Rome in 313 and you're still on this subject? It does make sense to people who actually study the history. Constantine converted and in 380 Christianity became law and other cults became illegal, this is why it grew. It doesn't make it real?
The fact that you can't understand the "common sense" is meaningless? But Christian persecution didn't end until 311 so of course there were many other religions flourishing in Rome?

en.wikipedia.org...
Constantine's position on the religions traditionally practiced in Rome evolved during his reign. In fact, his coinage and other official motifs, until 325, had affiliated him with the pagan cult of Sol Invictus.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Christianity has become the largest Religion in the world.

First, if Jesus died, why did the Disciples become more determined to spread Christianity? Many religions came and went after the leader died. Not so with Christianity.

Being the largest religion means nothing except an appeal to authority which is a fallacy. Just as many people believe in ghosts. There are 13 as many Muslins and 1/3 as many Hindu so 2/3 of all religious humans believe a false religion.
So we see that it's possible for huge amounts of people to be wrong about religious beliefs.

originally posted by: neoholographicNext, the conversion of Saul to Paul. Again, why Christianity? Why go from someone persecuting and having Christians killed to risking your life for Christ?

Paul was against an anti-temple group of Christians then he converted to the new dying/rising savior god version. So?
Millions of atheists have converted to Hindu, Muslim, even suicide cults where they died for the cult.
This is not evidence that it actually a real supernatural thing.

originally posted by: neoholographicLastly, why Constantine? Why did Constantine have such a profound experience with Christianity that he had his soldiers draw Christian symbols on their shields in the middle of a civil war. An illegal religion at the time and it only made up 5% of the population at the time.

I thought we were done with speculation about an emperor 300 years after the fact? Other emperors had visions of other mystery cults before this, thousands of leaders have had mystical experiences that turned them to Krishna, Osirus or whatever other fictional demigod. This is not even a little bit of proof that it's a real story?

originally posted by: neoholographicWhy Christianity? Jesus was not well known.. How did this become the biggest religion in the world?

The growth of Christianity in the first 300 years was exactly the growth rate of Mormonism in the 1800s.
I can find PhD Richard Carrier explaining this.
Christ was the last version of the dying -rising savior god cults that were becoming popular in the Meditranniean. Christianity was the last version and took hold because of Romes conversion. Some cult was bound to become successful.
No proof that it's real in this logic.

It did not largely spread until 380 when Rome made it law.

originally posted by: neoholographicWhy didn't Paul have a vision of Jupiter or Constantine have a vision of Mithra since you say Mithra was extremely popular with his troops?

No, history shows 1/2 of the Roman army was Mithrian. Constantines reasons can be studied here:

en.wikipedia.org...

and nothing suggest it was anything more than just another superstitious cult.

Why did Paul have a vision of Christ? HE WAS A JEW? Christianity has a prophecy (they got from the Persians) about their own personal dying/rising savior god so of course he would go with the JEWISH VERSION????

originally posted by: neoholographicWouldn't it make more sense to motivate your tr Like I said, your argument is devoid of basic common sense.

Enough about Constantine. makes no sense.

You keep going back to Constantine even though I've proven all my points?
I don't care what "makes sense" to you, I'm using historical sources to explain what we know.
All articles on Ancient Roman Mithriasm say it flourished in Rome from 1-3AD.
If it was flourishing in 3AD the OF COURSE THE ARMY WAS LARGELY MITHRIAN?

Why do you keep saying "makes no sense" when it's a historical fact?

In early 3AD Christianity was still being prosecuted by many Romans, they still worshipped many other gods.


"During the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the archaeology includes a great many Mithraea"
www.ancient.eu...

"At some time around 302, a report of ominous haruspicy in Diocletian's domus and a subsequent (but undated) dictat of placatory sacrifice by the entire military triggered a series of edicts against Christianity.[192] The first (303 AD) "ordered the destruction of church buildings and Christian texts, forbade services to be held, degraded officials who were Christians, re-enslaved imperial freedmen who were Christians, and reduced the legal rights of all Christians... [Physical] or capital punishments were not imposed on them" but soon after, se

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: neoholographic
Regarding Blumrich and the Spaceships of Ezekiel, your link ended like this.


Exactly how was it misplaced? Give me the exact quotes from the book or are yo How can you or anyone tell me or anyone else that they must read the Bible as metaphors or myths?

that criticism is here:
en.wikipedia.org...

did I not already say (twice) you can read the bible, Harry Potter or any other book as non-myth/historical. I do not care. I'm saying (in a discussion forum) there is no evidence it's anything but myth. There also is strong evidence that it IS myth.

originally posted by: neoholographicThis just shows me that the extradimensional/extraterrestrial visitation in the Bible really scares some people. You desperately want everyone to read the Bible according to your point of view. Who are you to dictate to others how they must interpret scripture? You said:

Definitely not scared. I think ufos might be real. Savior gods like Jesus, Osirus, Romulus and so on are definitely mythic stories. I'm not "dictating" any more than you are. This is called a "discussion".

originally posted by: neoholographic

Again wrong. This wasn't about deities roaming in the sky. This was about a clear interaction with the pillar in the cloud.

Pillar in the sky and pillar of fire were part of the Hebrew god-myths. They represent god or Yahweh not ufo craft. Do you not think the Bronze Age people were much more concerned with their god stories than ufos? Even if they saw a ufo they would just call it an angel.

originally posted by: neoholographicExodus 24:18 - And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

Right except in scholarship Moses and the Patriarchs are 100% myth.

en.wikipedia.org...
Moses (/ˈmoʊzɪz, -zɪs/)[2][Note 1] was a prophet according to the teachings of the Abrahamic religions. Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person,[3][4] while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed.

Thomas Thompsons PhD work on the mythic nature of Moses and the Patriarchs was peer reviewed and accepted into the historicity field in the 1980's.

But if you read William Denvers interview, the leading biblical archeologist you can see not only from a historical perspective but from archeology it's clear these are myths evolved from older myths. Yahweh once had a girlfriend/goddess Ashera but that fell out of favor.

originally posted by: neoholographicThis wasn't something Moses saw in the sky. The vehicle carried Moses into the mountains. There's no basis to say some magic cloud magically transported Moses into the mountains. There's no reason to read this as some myth. It only makes sense if something carried Moses into the mountains like the verse says.

"Only makes sense", your reading ancient stories basically from Egypt and not allowing for a mythic interpretation?

"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. "

You are wrong, there are multiple interpretations and to say that only your version makes sense is a huge fallacy right there.
Do you not think I could look through Zeus scriptures and find things that look like ufos?

originally posted by: neoholographic

This wasn't something that just roamed in the sky.

The cloud covered the tent of congregation and they couldn't go into the tent because the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. This isn't something just roaming in the sky but's directly interacting with them.



Exodus 40:34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

You're making an argument that makes no sense. You're saying I can only read these things as myths and fantasy because it's your point of view.

Vague references to clouds in mythology is just not sounding like ufos.
But it's not "my point of view", it's the consensus in scholarship.

en.wikipedia.org...

"According to Thomas L. Thompson, a representative of the Copenhagen School, the archaeological record largely does not lend any support for the Old Testament's narratives as history, and offers evidence that some stories are mythical, though this is open to debate"


William G. Dever (who I already linked an entire interview from)
""Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence."

The Patriarchs - "drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. "

The Books of Samuel are considered to be based on both historical and legendary sources, primarily serving to fill the gap in Israelite history after the events described in Deuteronomy. The battles involving the destruction of the Canaanites are not supported by archaeological record, and it is now widely believed that the Israelites themselves originated as a sub-group of Canaanites.[46][47][48] The Books of Samuel exhibit too many anachronisms to have been compiled in the 11th century BCE."

originally posted by: neoholographicThis silly argument shows me that some people are just desperate because of their belief. They want everyone to read the Bible as myth and fantasy because you have deluded yourself into thinking this way.
It's just asinine for you to say how I must read the Bible.

By "silly" you mean following the consensus of scholarship.
By "desperate" you mean engaging in a discussion using sources and unattached to the outcome.
By "deluded" you mean educated.
For the 3rd time, you can read the bible, star wars or any other book as pure history. I do not care.
The discussion is are biblical stories ufo stories. I'm saying they are probably not. Why, and why would they speak of clouds and sky phenomenon? Because they are myths and all myths use this imagery.

Even weirder is you use the large # of Christians as evidence of it's truth but almost NONE of them would verify the ufo connection. And exactly ZERO PhD theologians back this interpretation? You use argument to authority but no bible scholars agree with you?

originally posted by: ArMaP

What do you think is the reason for Christianity's popularity?

I never understood that logic. Even though it's a fallacy it still shows that 69% of all people believe in something that by Christian logic is a false belief?
So it's possible for ~70% of people to believe in something false then the fact that 30% of people believe something does not mean it's true at all?
It just demonstrates how many people can have a false belief.