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.

 

location of ark of covinent?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I will reference Thomas, I need to give him a name because he is another one of my best friends and he showed me the truth more than anyone else ever could.

I hope he gets better


Thank you everyone. You've cheered me up X infinity.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Many legends and muths are verifiably false.


What can exist seperate from truth? There must be truth in it, or all the generations that preceded us would not have carried such a torch to us. Legends and Myths are encoded for us with truth, or the truth is they simply would not be.


Snopes is filled with them. Some are quite ancient, yet we have a historical thread that shows them growing in extravagance over time, such as Santa Claus.


And yet, one of the first souls we sent to the moon reported "Be advised, there is a Santa Clause". He was talking to control, not to children.


If you wish to deny that there are such things as legends and myths, or if you wish to reject the idea that they can form gradually as stories are repeatedly embelished during retelling, that's up to you. These things are obvious enough I think to be unworthy of discussion. The question in my mind is not whether or not this happens, but whether or not that is what happened in regard to the ark of the covenant.


I understand what you are saying. I concede that the specifics may be misleading, however there is truth within them, or all the ignorant idiots that preceded us are providing us with too much b.s. for the purpose of . . .. well, what would they gain, they are dead, aren't they?



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Your opinions based on a mind that is not 1 verses the billions of minds that preceded you. Who carries more weight in the arguement? Obviously you do, because you know better than the billions that have preceded you. Fancy that.


I didn't even claim that the stories of the ark were greatly exagerated, I just asked the question as to why that isn't a reasonable assumption.


because an assumption is still a choice to regard truth as fact, or not think about it at all, as it serves no purpose for you to do so. Make enough assumptions to expereince less, and you will condition yourself to experience less.



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
However, I have done this in a class of 30 in a leadership class in the Air Force. We were given twelve words, and only 2 people could be in the room at a time to relay. We did produce a end result that was the 12 words we started from, but I admit it was on our third attempt.


So you know from your own experience that this does in fact happen, yet you seem to be calling the concept into question nonetheless?!


I acknowledge that when the chain is strong enough, and the need is percieved as something exponentially important, people will be more than willing to forgo their own self preservation and forfeit their very existance in order to do . . .. . .. . well, what is it that would drive them to such a cause?



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
The links are to blame, not the message. Why hate the message because of the messenger's fears manifesting in your reality?


We don't have a priori knowledge of the original message. All we have is what the links have reported. Part of the goal is to determine whether or not the message we have received from the links resembles the original or not.


Why try to discredit billions of souls? Because they made assumptions? We would still be choosing to know what they were thinking without listening to them, because it does not fit our needs. They walked this earth for their time, into their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 100s, and if during that time they disproved the bible, where is their proof? Their "reports" are what they gave us, their truth as they could supply it. Perhaps they were putting into words that existed at the time what it was that was experienced as best they could. I know what you are saying, and see how logical it seems, however i am not personnally willing to accept that i should just brain dump their credability based on my opinionated assumptions.



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Then choose to look at it from my perspective. I know and accept yours as is, you do not know nor accept mine as is.


I don't recall claiming to understand you better than you understand yourself, nor claiming there are regions of knowledge you can not have insight into as a result of your beliefs.


But, (and at times i have been just as guilty) you do tell me your truth which is based upon opinionated assumptions that condition us to not pay attention to supportive evidence that supports ideas that we have already accepted as false.



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
"naive and arrogant" is stereotyping.


No it isn't. It's a judgement about you specifically as a result of what you've claimed. It isn't a judgement about you because you are a member of some group.


Passing Judgement is stereotyping. And it is you objecting and resisting mentally what stimulis is presented to your mind through your own senses. The same senses that present all incoming information to your subconscious before your subconscious presents the information to your conscious mind, and if your conscious mind is not permitting the information from your subconscious mind into your conscious mind, then your jusdment and your stereotyping and your opinions are based upon a mind that is not 1 mind, but broken into parts that do not share the information with the other parts. It's polite to share. I also know it is not you judging me specifically, nor any group you may percieve i belong to. It is how you choose to utilize deductive reasoning and logical thought that is dependant upon your experiences, the same experiences you are not paying attention to because you are offended by the incoming information, and you think it is not worthy of you.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
With all due respect ET, I'm not interested in a subdiscussion on how the mind works. This thread is about the ark of the covenant, and I don't see that it is necessary to delve into the workings of the mind in order to discuss such a subject, and quite honestly, I have no interest in esotericism.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
With all due respect ET, I'm not interested in a subdiscussion on how the mind works. This thread is about the ark of the covenant,...... . ..


If the ark of the covenant exists (I believe it does), and it is of God, then can fear and hate approach it and survive? As I understand it no one unpure and fearing or hating God could approach it and live.


. .. . . and I don't see . .. .


I know. When you're done deiscovering the truth isn't "Out there", then eventually you'll look where you have not looked.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If the ark of the covenant exists (I believe it does), and it is of God, then can fear and hate approach it and survive? As I understand it no one unpure and fearing or hating God could approach it and live.


You're certainly entitled to your beliefs, but your beliefs really play no role in the history of the ark, assuming it exists.

The question remains; why is myth not a more plausible explanation than the actual existence of a shiny magic box that shoots lighting at people and instantly kills anyone that touches it?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
The question remains; why is myth not a more plausible explanation than the actual existence of a shiny magic box that shoots lighting at people and instantly kills anyone that touches it?


Thank you. This is a great question, and acknowledging the question is perhaps as far as some can get without making certain assumptions, but what factors play into the assumptions made? This question, although I have an answer (I concede it may not be the only correct answer) must be pondered. I will think about this one Spam. And as usual, you once again have not failed my expectations of you, because you make me think.

Thanks Spam.
a vote for you



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Okay, HOLD ON HERE! You were mentioning two arks, one made of wood and the other made of gold. Well, the orginal Ark WAS made of wood and then gold overlaid. As far as where the either Ark is now...hmm...I'd say one is in a rocky hillside twenty-six miles east of the original Temple site.

But that's just me.



I will reference Thomas, I need to give him a name because he is another one of my best friends and he showed me the truth more than anyone else ever could.

I hope he gets better

Thank you everyone. You've cheered me up X infinity.



Anytime, Simon!

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
The Ark in Ethiopia is a copy. Do you really believe the King would give away their most holy possession? The real Ark was and is still hidden in a cave below the spot where Jesus was crucified. Ron Wyatt who is not a fake or scam artist was led to it. I've got his videos and they are digging again near the garden tomb. I haven't been a Christian since 1975, but I'm convinced Ron believed everything he talked about. I don't think he's correct on the Noah's ark info. but I do think he found the Ark of the Covenant. Angels are protecting the Ark and won't let it be found until the time is right. The ark itself was not the source power which won battles for the Israelites. It was whatever entity that was there. Do I believe it was the Supreme being of all universes? No. There is no evidence for a Supreme being. Spiritual beings and ets yes. But how would you prove a being is supreme. You can't.

www.youtube.com...

www.wyattmuseum.com



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join