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.

 

300 proofs to GODs existance

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2003 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I can agree with that madmanacrosswater


There are literally hundreds of religions each claim the singular right of knower of the secrets of secrets. My standpoint is that they all have pieces of the pie and as such it behooves the individual to learn as much as is possible. The reality is a majority of these faiths were made at times in our history when man thought the earth was flat, where what was known of the Universe extended just outside the orbit of Saturn.

The fact is this is not the case and as a result common sense implies that if reality is not what out ancestors thought it was then perhaps neither is religion.

Jag never in the time I have been in this site have I spoken more in regard to my personal beliefs the reasons simply is that the membership of this site has seen fit to respect me in that regard.

You seem obviously to be an exception



posted on Aug, 7 2003 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Uh no Byrd, America was always called La Merica. Whether by people who knew it existed or believed it did, it was called that.

The man attributed with claiming America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, was one Mr. Waldseemueler. He a few years later retracted his statements, admitting that America was called America before the amature explorer ever set sail to the New World.

But by then most books in print on the subject were citing Waldseemueler's book on amature Geography, which attributed the Name to Amerigo.



posted on Aug, 7 2003 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Why do I get a thumbs down Toltec?



posted on Aug, 7 2003 @ 08:16 PM
link   
maynardsthirdeye you misunderstood was not talking to you at that time



posted on Aug, 7 2003 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Toltec
Again I believe you have not entirely read or understand my postings. I don't care what you believe I just wanted more information on Quexalcote. Here is what has happened:
1. You make a posting dealing with a deity called Quexalcote where you make certain assertions.
2. This assertion is also shows up on many skeptic web sites.
3. I search for the term Quexalcote and find the only references to Quexalcote are in a book written by a Kersey Graves and web sites which quote Graves.
4. However, some searching seems to indicate that Quexalcote is an alternate spelling for Quetzalcoatl who is a well known messoamerican deity.
5. I conjecture this on a posting and you stated that Quexalcote is not the same as Quetzalcoatl.
6. I ask for more information such as a book, web site, text, etc which deals with Quexalcote other than the information already written in Kersey Graves book. Surely there must be some other information.
7. I research tends to make me think that when Graves reference Quexalcote he was using a archaic spelling of Quetzalcoatl.
8. I merely asked for more information dealing with Quexalcote if this is a seperate deity than Quetzalcoatl.
9. Then why are you getting so bent out of shape about me. If you have some belief in Quexalcote then you should be able to post a book or web site refering to him and providing information about him.
10. What is wrong with asking someone to provide information. You seem to take this request as some form of personal attack.



posted on Aug, 7 2003 @ 10:44 PM
link   
*Blows Whistle, signifying time out*

Toltec, it really does appear that you aren't reading the posts completely, and it would appear as if you are getting ill with simple and, what I see, simple and sincere requests for clarification. Maintain objectivity and composure, please. If that isn't possible, lay the weapon at your feet and take 10 steps backward!



posted on Aug, 8 2003 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Quetzalcoatl
�Quetzalcoatl�only he, no other God, had a human body. He was �el hombre-dios�, the God made flesh, man embodied with divine spirit.

Quexalcote
Chimalman, mother of Quexalcote was a virgin. There was an immaculate conception, a crucifixion, and a resurrection after three days.

Quetzalcoatl [Nahuatl,=feathered serpent], ancient deity and legendary ruler of the Toltec in Mexico. The name is also that of a Toltec ruler, who is credited with the discovery of corn, the arts, science, and the calendar. It is unclear whether the ruler took his name from the God or as a great ruler was revered and later deified.

Quetzalcoatl, God of civilization, was identified with the planet Venus and with the wind; he represented the forces of good and light pitted against those of evil and darkness, which were championed by Tezcatlipoca. According to one epic legend, Quetzalcoatl, deceived by Tezcatlipoca, was driven from Tula, the Toltec capital, and wandered for many years until he reached his homeland, the East coast of Mexico�where he was consumed by divine fire, his ashes turning into birds and his heart becoming the morning star. Another version has him sailing off to a mythical land, leaving behind the promise of his return. Adopting the name, the Aztec linked it with the worship of the war God Huitzilopotchtli and applied it to some of their ranking priests. Montezuma viewed the Spanish invaders as the returning hosts of Quetzalcoatl. There is a great pyramid in honor of the deity at Cholula, and the sky-serpent motif in the mosaics at Mitla probably represents Quetzalcoatl. The famous Temple of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuac�n is now regarded by some authorities as having been consecrated to a different God.

It is likely that the figure who gave rise to the legendary Quetzalcoatl was an ancestor of his Maya counterpart, Kulkulc�n. The Toltec of Tula moved southward, settled in SW Campeche, and in the 10th cent. under the leadership of Kulkulc�n, a historical figure, occupied Chich�n Itz� and founded the cities of Uxmal and Mayap�n. Although probably assimilated into the Maya culture by this time, the invaders still employed Mexican architectural motifs (especially the feathered serpent) extensively. After the death of Kulkulc�n he became the patron deity of Chich�n Itz�, and most of the temples were dedicated to him. The symbol for both Quetzalcoatl and Kulkulc�n, the serpent with quetzal feathers, has an obvious connection with serpent worship.

See L. S�journ�, Burning Water (tr. 1957).

----------
The God Kulkulc�n was one of the major gods of the Maya, and was inherited by the Toltec as equally significant. Not only was he a God of the four elements, he was also the creator God and the God of resurrection and reincarnation. He may have originated from Toltec myth, where he was a divine hero who taught the Toltec laws, fishing, healing, the calendar and agriculture. His name means "the feathered serpent" and the Aztecs merged him with Quetzalcoatl.


The main pyramid in the Mayan/Toltec ruins of Chichen Itza is "El Castle", the pyramid of Kulkulc�n. This pyramid is often mistakenly called the pyramid of the sun because of its astronomical orientation, but it is clearly dedicated to Kulkulc�n, the feathered serpent. It was original built by Mayans about 600 CE, and improved by Toltecs around 1000 CE. The astronomical detail is interesting, showing the connection of the Great Serpent and the cosmos: There are 365 steps [ the number of days in the solar year]; 52 panels [one for each year in the Mayan cyclical century; 18 terraces, one for each month in the Mayan religious year].
------------

Appears is a good way to put it TC



Kulkulc�n and Quexalcote are one in the same as far as the taking of names in ancient culture and the specific meaning. Take into consideration that reincarnation was and is accepted, as a result names would be applied to others as a way of expressing they were the reincarnation of the one prior.

I remember seeing a site several years ago which actually depicted an image of the crucifixion of Quexalcote, the site is no longer active it seems.

Nonetheless the Mayan do have a God of resurrection and reincarnation which historians state is Kulkulc�n.

Now understand, that in respect to my personal knowledge of Indian History. I can look at what is said by historians with respect to American Indian Empires.

And when looking at it, at least 40% percent of it is misleading it is either the result of misinterpretation or an intentional effort to confuse the matter.

I know of Quexalcote I also know of Quetzalcoatl for the record there is much written with respect to Quexalcote and if one understand Mayan Hieroglyphs one can read the equivalent of volumes in respect to it. Of course much of what was placed in writing by the Mayans was destroyed by those who felt it was relevant to erase there history. To be sincere they did take the liberty of recording the life of Quexalcote in there records.

I want to emphasis that it is one thing to say that documentation with respect to the Mayan culture exist and quite another thing to say that today all the history of the Mayans is known. To be specific more that 1/2 of the history of the Mayans was destroyed upon the arrival of the Vatican Assembly. With respect to that information what exist (what is left) is what is handed down by word of mouth, which by the way I am qualified to discuss.

As well see attached.....

www.rjames.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2003 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I'm sorry if you have already done this, but I do not see in this thread where you present any historical evidence of your claims to Quetzalcoatl being crucified and resurrecting. This flies in the face of what historically has been stated of this "Viracochan-like" god.

Please supply names of books, etc. So that this may be researched because for the time being I feel that you are only lending proof to Jag's concept of the unskeptical skeptic.

Thank you.

[Edited on 8-8-2003 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 8 2003 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Mmmkay. some research:

Chimalman- Minor female Deity. The mother of COATLICUE. "

COATLICUE: Goddess of Earth and Fire. Wears a skirt of writhing snakes and a necklace of human hands and hearts. Also has claws and a double snake head.

She's known as the Mother of the Gods, and her offspring shot to the top of the pantheon. Her sons were QUETZALCOATL and XOLOTL, her daughter was COYOLXAUHQUI, and HUITZILOPOCHTLI.



It is important to note that while there is a pre-Hispanic myth of a virgin birth, it is Huitzilopochtli's myth, not Quetzalcoatl's. Native authors never ascribe this myth to Quetzalcoatl, who is typically born of a named father. The shifting context becomes explicit in the Telleriano Remensis which states: "Quetzalcoatl: It is he who was born of the virgin named Chimalma (sic), in the heavens." ("Codex Telleriano-Remensis.") frontpage2000.nmia.com...

...and from further in the same article:


The name of Quetzalcoatl's mother in this passage (Chimalman) agrees with most sources, but Chimalman is not a virgin in any other version of the Chimalman myth. The virgin in the Huitzilopochtli myth is Coatlicue, as indicated above. The Quetzalcoatl myth includes a named father, usually Mixcoatl. In addition, Chimalman is the mother only in a terrestrial context. The tales of Quetzalcoatl's birth in the heavens is a different myth altogether. The mixing of elements in this gloss, as well as the ascription of the Spanish-influenced notion of the virgin birth for Quetzalcoatl clearly suggest that this gloss is due to a later Spanish distortion of the native material.

The virgin birth of Huitzilopochtli was borrowed by the Spaniards, removed from its original context, and reattached to Quetzalcoatl much later in the Christianizing process. Since the virgin birth is an important Christian theme, the writers eventually tagged it onto the Quetzalcoatl material, as in all other ways, Quetzalcoatl appeared most Christian.

...which is consistant with other sources I've read.



posted on Aug, 8 2003 @ 01:20 PM
link   
A person born in Mayan or for that matter other American Indian Empires was assigned a name at birth, that name depending on his or her acts was changed as they grew up. The name Quetzalcoatl is a title assigned to whomever accomplished acts related to what in this case were relatable to the ability of a man with the power to restore life as well as come back from the dead.

About five year ago I did see a link which discussed in detail the crucifixion of a Mayan prophet which amongst the names assigned to him was Quexalcote.


While I can continue searching for the link a search conducted yesterday did not result in my locating it.

I have never stated anything at this site which was incorrect for the sake of "winning and argument" at my age would be silly, my consistency with respect to this is clear.

Kulkulc�n is the God of Resurrection and reincarnation he was alive during the Mayan Empire a time frame which is different from the Toltec empire.

As the God of resurrection what is suggested is that he did come back from the dead.

As far as books, records ect ... they have been destroyed. To be sincere the idea this lends credence to anything beyond the acts of an abusive culture to destroy another makes very little sense.



posted on Aug, 8 2003 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Okay, thank you for your honest response, so we can now lay to rest (until foundational evidence is supplied) that Quetzalcoatl was 1.) born of a virgin, 2.) crucified, and 3.) resurrected. And cannot be used in conjunction with 1, 2, and 3, to draw some conclusion as to the invalidity of Christianity.



posted on Aug, 8 2003 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Ah...they came out with a way to explain god to the engineers (ISTJ's) of the world. For us INFP's...we already knew it (but...shhh.... its a secret).



posted on Aug, 8 2003 @ 11:38 PM
link   


Quote from Redsilas

God's existance

Ah...they came out with a way to explain god to the engineers (ISTJ's) of the world. For us INFP's...we already knew it (but...shhh.... its a secret).


Could you be a little more specific as to what you are attempting to say???



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 12:26 AM
link   
If you guys are thinking that I consider any of that an implication that Jesus Christ born in a manger in Bethlehem circa AD was not the Son of God, that is far from what I am saying. That other cultures have reported similar events from my perspective does not negate the story of Jesus it certifies it.

Look I come from a culture whose membership, its history and its technology was totally wiped out.

I mean to an extent some guy made millions of dollars selling a book saying the Nazca lines were markings for aliens (like that can travel millions of light years and need marking to know where to go on earth) and the only real understanding we possess about the culture's in general is a calendar.

There were records of births, deaths, music, poetry, art, family histories, plays and of course all the gold and precious metals and jewels they could carry, all lost.

And of course the greatest loss of all, the people.

The stories I can tell you all are incredible and not just things I have already mentioned.

The only objects found (for instance) in Mayan culture which incorporated the technology of wheels were toys for children.

Any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 12:41 AM
link   
In my short life, i have tried to prove God didnt exist, for a while i didnt want him too, but everywhere i looked i could only find one reason, God. How did Noah know to build the arc? Why have the two most perfect people have ever known died before they reached 20 one at 15 the other at 17 one nine days before her sixteenth birthday, the other five days before her birthday. I have only seen the most promising christian girls be taken. I cant even explain how loving they were of their lord. Both were lost in car accidents. One just didnt turn and the other had an unexplained cramp in her right leg which caused her to hit the accelerator and get broadsided. Once i was in hastings where an elderly trashy man tried to start something. well, as we teenagers were, we were pissed. My friends wanted to injure him quite horribly but we couldnt find him because he ran. Five minutes later he was in the lane next to us. My friend swirved into that lane sideswiping and tearing up a truck. He ran. The truck caught up with us and bam we stopped and talked to them. They had to have been angels. There was thousands of dollars worth of damage to their truck but they simply said "were glad yall are okay and god forgives all. Dont worry about the damage." explain that guys



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Toltec
There is indeed no intention to imply anything about your belief; however, there is a lack of good information on the internet dealing with Quexalcote. The only available information comes froms Kersey Graves book "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" published in 1875. All references on the internet dealing with Quexalcote are either copy of Graves's book or references to it. If you read my latest posting in "The Unskeptical Skeptic - Part 1", you will see that Graves's work is highly questioned by most scholars. The problem with his work is that he references sources without quotes, makes statements with referencing a source that can be checked, etc. It is almost impossible to determine where Graves is right and where he is wrong and this makes Graves's work an unreliable source. Also Graves's book does not contain the flow of Quexalcote's life, the story, just enough details to support his contentions.

You know about Quexalcote and you know about writings dealing with the life of Quexalcote. Here is a subject that has been poorly dealt with on the internet. Much has been written about Quetzalcoatl but there is very little about Quexalcote and all that comes from Graves's book. The story of Quexalcote has not been adequately presented on the internet and perhaps it is time for that situation to be corrected. Maybe you might want to consider writing an article about the life of Quexalcote with references to what literature is available and placing it on an applicable web site if possible. Here is an opportunity for you to correct the lack of good and complete information on the internet concerning Quexalcote and make his story available for all people.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 09:03 AM
link   
That is an excellent idea! And TOLTEC, I for one would be VERY interested in reading that. Do you think you might be interested in doing a blog on this?

Let me know if you decide to.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Shakya Buddha died in 483 BC when he was 80 years old. Though, after his death, his followers began to produce "miracle stories" about him, which actually contradicted much of his teachings, none of these included his resurrection. There were many of his monks present at his death, and it is well recorded by these witnesses.

The story of Civilization: Part I, Our Oriental Heritage, by Will Durant, Simon and Schuster, 1954.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 10:08 AM
link   
That is the biggest load of crap ive ever seen, lol. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD!



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 10:30 AM
link   
That comment is unfounded, an opinion, and not in keeping with the topic of this thread.

Please refrain from flaming.







 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join