It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Priors Of Sion"
I find it an extremly possible if not a certainty, that Jesus, as a Rabbi, would have one or more desendants..as within jewish law its compulsary.
If its the case, then Mary wasnt the "prostitue", forgiven and pardoned by him, but his wife.
Originally posted by infinite
"Priors Of Sion"
The Priory of Sion was a proven fake. People came forward to confess it was a hoax.
Has the truth about the "REAL" jesus, the desendant of the house of David & heir to the throne of Jerusalem & not the son of god
The facts about the life of a man, a man of which historically very little evidence exists
Its sad that we will never know the truth
Jewish virtual library
The Talmud tells of a rabbi who was introduced to a young unmarried rabbi. The older rabbi told the younger one not to come into his presence again until he was married.
As per below, there is nothing clear about his not having a wife. You might as well presume that every one of his followers save for Peter, also was not married, simply because there is nothing within those 4 books that clearly states so. There is also no evidence, in fact, even less evidence than a marriage, that he died anywhere between the age of 30 and 33, yet, that is what is commonly touted.
Originally posted by Thomas CrowneThe propagation of lies is not well researched fact. It is clear that Christ did not marry, nor did He fornicate, elsewise He would not have come back from the grave and walked mong people to let them see that He had arisen. Without dying with no sin, His scarifice would not have cleansed us of our sins.
Purely a bombastic tactic meant to minimize and insult the poster, especially when Spain was a country immersed in Christianity long before your forefathers ever considered crossing the Atlantic.
God may not belong in your country, Spain, but the Christian faith is what my nation is built on, and it belongs here.
Yet another attempt at minimization and insult. Perhaps you are of the belief that there are those who were once believers, and who not by by studious due diligence, but ignorance have come to see the farce in the teachings, or perhaps you simply choose the easy route which is to console yourself that they never were believers to begin with, since rationalizing such rejection and dismissing same is far more comforting to your own belief. The Bible also clearly states to beware of false prophets, I can see no better way for the supposed devil you deal with to manipulate you into believing his word simply by including that disclaimer in words he caused to be written. You have no proof either that he did not, nor that anyone truly believing in the real God wrote those words.
Interesting that people who do not believe try and understand Christianity, even though the Bible clearly states that the Bible will be a mystery to those who do not believe.
Correction! The Bible is by implication considered a conspiracy.
The conspiracy of this thread is clear, although at first I figured this was another thread created by someone who doesn't understand the definition of conspiray and cannot read the directions at ther beginning of each forum. The conspiracy is simply this: "well researched & well written with very plausable arguemnets" pieces of fiction, created to veer people away from God and His plan for salvation. Things are going just as they were prophesied, and this is nothing more than more proof of that.
There is even less information that he was married, yet you believe he was not. Everyone believes it? What exactly does everyone believe, and where is the world wide poll of all the billions living today and those past to prove this?
Infinite-There is no evidence to suggest Jesus was married.
Not really, everyone believes it and its a confessed hoax, just like the John titor hoax. Jesus did not marry nore have children, period.
Originally posted by Al Davison
I don't believe that there is any evidence to support that the Cathars were not Christians. . . .
They were also, in many instances, dualists and believed that John the Baptist was probably the real messiah but that Jesus was a great prophet. It's hard to know because virtually all their documents were destroyed and what we know of them comes largely from what their RCC critics wrote about them.
Through a life dedicated to ever increasing purity, the composite nature of man can undergo a double death and transfiguration, so that the formed spirit, born of the spark and nourished in the soul, will eventually separate, returning to the Light. The rigorously ascetic discipline necessary to achieve this state was available to the "Parfaits" (or "perfects"), master adepts, and a lower grade of adepts. The masses, or "believers" as they were called, were allowed to live fully in the ways of the householder, and understood that they were enmeshed in cycles of reincarnation to be reborn on Earth.
They held to the tenet that Christ was cosmic, (and so could not have been crucified), suicide was sacred . . .
To write that the Catholic church "destroyed them" is truthful but not entirely accurate - the armies of those Popes tortured and slaughtered them wholesale! Men, women, and children (unarmed and putting up virtually no resistance) were hacked to death and burned at the stake! I'm not sure that there can ever be any atonement for such heinous crimes committed in the name of Christianity.
According to the "prieure documents," a conclave of Calabrian monks who left from the Belgian Abbey of Orval in 1090 helped secure the election of Godfroi de Bouillion as de facto king of Jerusalem during the First Crusade (but as is well known, he refused the title, accepting only Defender of the Holy Sepulchre), based on their belief that he was a descendant of the Merovingians, and by that fact, according to these documents, also a descendant of King David through Jesus and Merovech. In return, Godfroi secured their installation into an Abbey on Mount Sion. These documents also claim that the Ordre of Sion and the Order of the Temple (officially, the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon, later known as the Knights Templar, and officially recognized as such in 1118) were, until 1188, one unified organization with the same leadership.
Originally posted by Al Davison
I had no idea that Alabama was a nation.
I understand full well why he was here, because his mother and father copulated. Now as to what he did while alive is far better discerned from the comprehensive writings of Flavius Josephus than the silly stories called parables and the disjointed tales of his adult life as told by those we know absolutely nothing about. He did what he had to do indeed! He like Simon the magican fancied himself the warrior saviour and brought about nothing but death and destruction against his own kind by his own sword and lust for power. Were you at all interested in facts, you would acquaint yourself objectively with that history.
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes, if you understand why Jesus was here and what He had to do in order to be successful, you know what He did or did not do.
God being omnipotent has absolutely no reason to create a subsect of himself in human flesh, and one at that who kept telling everyone that they are not to repeat his words, or say he was the saviour. And one who most importantly fled like a scared rat from his hunters. Your God according to Revelation has the ability to notify the entire world of his power by a mere representation in the sky, but he must hate his creation so and be so sneaky and vengeful that he would rather play insipid little games of trickery, I suppose.
As He was God in the flesh and the disciples were disciples, I need not know the marital status of the disciples in order to know Christ's.
Now who is ducking? I expect nothing less than your refutation to same because you have not the humility to admit to your guilt. And if you think I pick apart your belief, then you must also be contemptuously single minded since you cannot see that you are employing deflection to bolster an obviously bruised ego. And I really do not care what your Bible states, it is laden with holes, contradictions anomalies and outright fantasy.
As far as the accusation that I am trying to insult or minimalize by stating what the Bible states, that is an attempt to duck. You are attempting to pick apart my belief and render it impotent by claiming that Christ was a sinner and a liar. I respond by stating what the Bible states.
Refer above the same response applies.
Again, you claim I am being Bomabstic and attempting to insult by clearly stating that my country's nation is based on Christianity whereas your country, Spain, might not be.
Nor I might add, do you have any knowledge of Spain either, you just spit out your darts and aim for the stated country. Further, you have nothing to support your claim that your country thinks this way, that is just a motherhood statement.
I have no idea about your country, nor am I knowledgeable of your country's founding documentation, nor do I care. I was stating that this belief is the foundation of my nation.
Please, find a better defensive posture.
You seem to be a bit sensitive, looking to be insulted. Or, you are merely trying to divert redress.