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 Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 35
16
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
so mary, who didn't have sex with joseph, had a baby that was born of the holy spirit, the 3 wise men fable visiting jesus...yet mary didn't believe jesus was anything other than normal? if she did would she not have the people of her town, or better yet her own family, as jesus' brothers did not believe him?

hows this fulfilling prophecy?




posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
She knew he was a gift from God because of the method of conception. She apparently did not know (or acknowledge) he was the Son of God who was destined to die on the cross to save mankind. In other words, she (and her other sons) were like most Hebrew skeptics of the day. It wasn't until the resurrection that she fully understood. It's true with the apostles that they didn't fully understand until the resurrection what was going on even though they were believers. I can reference scripture if you like but I know that's an unpopular thing around here unless asked.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
i was just curious as a supposed prophecy was that jesus would leave his home because people would not believe he was the messiah.

people often say that god shouldn't have to prove anything to us, just like jesus should not perform miracles just to prove to us who he was. however, correct me if i'm wrong but god told isiah most of the prophecies he made? yet, that goes against the 'proving concept' just for the sake of doing so. just wondered why jesus wouldn't perform miracles on demand, yet god felt the need to over-prove the coming of the messiah. just seems like someone was trying too hard to prove something.

look he left his home town and he's preaching good news...he must be the messiah!

also most of the evidence for these prophecies coming true are in matthew, mark, luke, john, acts(i think had the same author as luke), and these are pretty much fabricated documents and written to prove something from nothing.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
also most of the evidence for these prophecies coming true are in matthew, mark, luke, john, acts(i think had the same author as luke), and these are pretty much fabricated documents and written to prove something from nothing.


You keep saying this, but never supply any evidence, or proof, for saying or believing it. How did you come to this conclusion? Matthew, John & Peter were all eyewitnesses as they were Jesus disciples for along time and pretty much knew what they were talking about. Paul was an arch-enemy of Chrisitnaity and had condemned many Christians to prison or death before Christ finally made him understand Who he was fighting against.
While Mark was not a witness to all of the miracles and preaching of Jesus,
was a missionary of the Gospel and accompanied Paul on many trips to spread the Good News. All of the original disciples, except Judas and John,
were martyred for their faith and for preaching Jesus as the Son of God and the only means of salvation.

Now, do you really think that men who knew Jesus intimately; ate and slept and walked with Him for almost three years, would first, change everything they knew about Him, and then spend the rest of their lives preaching and teaching this lie, and then, finally, die... for a "lie".?

Before you judge the Book and those who wrote it, maybe it would be a good idea to "read" it and study what it says.

Acts 2:32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses."
Peter was telling everyone who would listen, that the same disciples/apostles who spent all that tim with Jesus, saw Him physically raised from the dead and alive again.

John 20:26-30 (Amplified Bible)

26 Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you!

27 Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe!

28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!

29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and trusted and relied on Me.

30 There are also many other signs and miracles which Jesus performed in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Where is the science behind the emaculant conception you say? Science-fiction.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
You keep saying this, but never supply any evidence, or proof, for saying or believing it. How did you come to this conclusion? Matthew, John & Peter were all eyewitnesses as they were Jesus disciples for along time and pretty much knew what they were talking about.


this is just another misconception christians have about their own religion, just like christians telling me moses wrote the first 5 books of the old testament, which has been proven by bible scholars to be false. i could post some links and some information about that if you would like, but on to the four gospels.

you must understand that the four gospels were not written by any of jesus' desciples. this again has been proven and is a widely accepted fact between bible scholars. go to any university and do a theology degree and you are likely to learn these to facts about who wrote the bible. we don't know who wrote the first 5 books of the old testament, nor do we know who wrote the four gospels, they are anonymous and the titles of the gospels were added afterwards; to enforce the belief that these were written by jesus' disciples.

during their time it was not unusual to attribute writings to well-known people, hence the disciples, to lend authority to them. which is why you believe they are by the disciples and must be true. mark is thought to be the oldest as both matthew and luke quote directly from mark, sometimes copying whole passages. now tell me if these authors were with jesus at the time, why were two of them copying and quoting from 'mark', did they take his journal one night and copy down what he said?

it is believed that these gospels were written around 70 AD, which would coincide with jews revolting against the romans, hence this was a time of crisis for the christian movement. most of the people that were around when jesus was were dead. these followers died with the promise that jesus would return in their lifetime, yet he did not. matthew mark luke are believed to be written between 70 AD and 80 AD, which was the same time as many started to wonder if jesus would ever return.

if you read mark, then read matthew and luke on the same thing mark is talking about then you will see many paralles. this is also why it is believed these gospels were written after jesus ascended to heaven, because of the vast amount of copying. if these were documents written as eyewitness accounts, they would not be quoting and copying from mark.

Jesus predicted that there would be wars, the persecution of the Christians by the Jews and civil authorities, conflicts within families, and the appearance of false messiahs before the return of Jesus. these things were already happening at the time Matthew, Mark, and Luke were writing their gospels. At the end of these chapters, Matthew, Mark, and Luke claim that Jesus reassured his disciples with these words, Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. their generation did pass, and jesus has not lived up to his promise...he lied. bend the truth as much as you want, but it is what it is and that is a promise that jesus never kept.

so mark, matthew, luke were written to reassure christians that jesus was coming back and should stick to their beliefs. john is believed to have been written around 90 AD to 100 AD, when all of jesus' followers had died, even his 'beloved disciple', who apparently wrote 'john'. it is also believed that the author of john was greek, and we know that any one of jesus' disciples were greek, this is mainly because of the style john is written in.

As you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you should be aware that much of what is written was intended to convince readers about "who Jesus was." Matthew, Mark, and Luke intended to "prove" that Jesus was the "messiah" expected by the Jews. They used stories of "miracles" performed by Jesus as "signs" of his messiahship, and they quoted writings (taken out of context) from the Hebrew Bible to show that Jesus fulfilled alleged "prophecies" concerning the expected messiah. There is no need to believe that these "miracles" really happened or that these alleged "prophecies" related to Jesus because history has proved that Jesus was not the Jewish messiah. The miracle stories and the alleged prophecies have become irrelevant.

i hope this helps. information from myself, what i have learnt, and from reading many upon many websites.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Where is the science behind the emaculant conception you say? Science-fiction.


I dont see where anyone asked that question...and I could never have envisioned you and I agreeing on something...but there it is.

Agreed 100%



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   


it is also believed that the author of john was greek, and we know that any one of jesus' disciples were greek


supposed to be ''and we know that none of jesus' disciples were greek''.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
One of the main problems that creates such a divide between christians and non-christians is the concept of infallibility.

Its also a large part of Islam, these religions will always be fighting something unless they can take this particular aspect out.

If you believe with your whole heart that no one else can be right but you, well you're just asking for problems.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

Originally posted by Frosty
Where is the science behind the emaculant conception you say? Science-fiction.


I dont see where anyone asked that question...and I could never have envisioned you and I agreeing on something...but there it is.

Agreed 100%


Whoa hey jake1997, can you elaborate here? Are you saying Matthew 1:18 did not happen?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Brother

That was my reaction when I first saw someone say what I just said. Keep in mind that I was even raised catholic. (yes..its a catholic doctrine thing again :-(

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


That is about Jesus CHrist. The following is from Catholic.com

The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings

In other words

Mary was sinless. In the Mary prayers...sometimes you pray on her immaculate heart.

Im really not sure why we needed Jesus when we had mary. Being sinless, should could have filled the price of the law.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Okay. I, being from a non-Catholic background, wasn't sure what you meant. If I was bright enough to look up the phrase in the dictionary instead of going off of my knowledge of the definition of the two words, I would've discovered what you had to explain to me as verified by merriam-webster:

Main Entry: Immaculate Conception
Function: noun
1 : the conception of the Virgin Mary in which as decreed in Roman Catholic dogma her soul was preserved free from original sin by divine grace
www.m-w.com...

Yeah...I don't see in the Bible where Mary was without sin and the reasoning you presented as to why is sound I think. Someone feel free to point something out that I'm not seeing. Again, Mary's status does not have any bearing on salvation according to John 3:16 so I'm still not clear to what the argument is about.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The only contest going on is between non and christians. It seems to be taking an RCC and christian turn now tho.

I dont want it to do that so I will go bow before my mary statue and pray to mary and ask her to not let it go that way



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

dont want it to do that so I will go bow before my mary statue and pray to mary and ask her to not let it go that way


And I will go to my "church" the highest hillside and ask guidance for the people of this planet that are fighting, name calling, and killing in his name.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
This topic needs its own thread, even though it is at the heart of the conspiracy

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 23-7-2005 by jake1997]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Well, not unless you count the burning of the nature worshipping, medicinal herb collecting women who were burned as evil witches by the church... that probably ruffled some feathers. The 8 or 9 crusades, which did not seem to care whether they killed Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and the millions of relatives who survived the carnage likely wished for some payback some day. The whole thing about defending slavery by saying that the story of Noah and his son Ham meant that God wanted white people to enslave black people... I bet that turned a few folks off the church. Even today, Christians tell me on a regular basis that I am going to burn in hell.......and it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I don't believe them, but still, I am not sentencing them to a fiery torturous afterlife that never ends.... Cuz I dont believe in hell. But the superiority complex that is apparent in so many Christians words and manner, and the fact that for a very long time Christians have been the better fighters, killers, weapons makers, etc. resulting in a very large number of folks that have been oppressed, exploited, abused, and discriminated against for generations just cuz they weren't Christians.
I wonder if any of those things could have sparked some kind of compulsion for a backlash. Some of those toes they stepped on might not have forgiven them yet, and are still looking for a little revenge. Vengeance is not right, but it is sure popular.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
is a lie. Now this may come as a shocker, but there are those who call themselves Christians when they truly are not. What what what? Why would they do that? Popularity, power, envy, some other selfish reason, I don't know and don't care for none of those reasons are intents of an actual Christian and have no place in the kingdom of God.

Oh man saint, this is so confusing! How? How can I tell if someone is ACTUALLY a Christian? The answer may not be as hard as you think. Two sources. You can consult God. You can consult His Word. You'll get that answer between one or the other but more than likely both.

Next, why are we worried about what a microscopic percentage of Christians do? Should we not first take the plank out of our own eye? Should we not let God judge those people?

So, before we go through the evils that men do again, let's talk about issues people have with God.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Saint Teresa, yes. But are you really a Saint? I did not mean to judge, but only to explain some of the reasons that I could think of of why a conspiracy against Christians could develop. No doubt there are a lot of reasons. But I agree, most intend good. The few bad ones get all the press, just like any group. Not doing any crimes doesn't get much press.
I have met very few people who I would classify as christian by my own personal means, which is not at all the same as the church. I decide if the person is striving to emulate Jesus, and aspires to be more like him, or if it at least appears that way, then that is what I assume is Christian. But I am not one, so maybe I shouldn't even try to explain my views from the outside looking in.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Next, why are we worried about what a microscopic percentage of Christians do? Should we not first take the plank out of our own eye? Should we not let God judge those people?


Hmm...Using this logic, we (the "good" people), should just let crime run rampant in the streets, willingly be victims, and go to our reward knowing that God will take care of those pesky evildoers. The Plank Parable is kind of cute, but, seriously, one would assume (from the way it is commonly used) that anyone that is critical of another's behavior, beliefs, or actions is automatically more flawed than the person being criticised. This is a flawed assessment, in and of itself. It is also another example of context piracy, and applies to a specific situation: False & biased evangelising.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Im more with Lordling then anyone on this.

Saint, your post seemed to have two different views in it that collide with one another.

On one hand you openly say that there are those who say they follow Christ, but do not. The world sees them as christian because the world does not know Christ.

Then on the other you say that they ARE christian and that saying anything to them or about them is judging them...and that we should clean out our own eye first.

You were right that there are plenty who call themselves christian and are not.
These people are doing satans work in leading people after things other then God. That is how it ties in with the antichristian conspiracy of satan.
Blackguard is way off base and wouldnt understand.

So now, there are those who worship things besides God, of whom Jesus said we will know them by their fruits. A good tree does not bring forth bad fruit.
A tree that tells you to bow before mary statues and pray to mary for prtection, healing, intercession in general...is a bad tree.
Its scripture.
Does your friend bow before mary? Have you showed him the scripture? Sure, this is a tough one to handle...but the price is even greater.
You can have all the good works in the world
You can pray john 3:16
You can say Jesus is Lord
but when you bow and give Glory in front of a statue of the Queen of Heaven, and give praise and honor due God, to that...your showing where your priority (there can be only one) is.
You cannot serve two masters.

The RCC has showed its fruit throughout history. Blackguard thinks the RCC is Christ in his 2 posts above.
THAT...
..is the conspiracy



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join