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 Fact is, Jesus is the prophesied Messiah

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Two questions. Who held these Ecclesiastic Councils that you are referring to.


You can learn abit about it here. www.livius.org...




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Two questions. Who held these Ecclesiastic Councils that you are referring to.


You can learn abit about it here. www.livius.org...


I am aware of it. I want SS give me an answer so that I know that he is aware of it.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   


Tell me Sun, which is the hebrew word for virgin and which word is used in the original hebrew version?


Not being a Hebrew scholar or Jewish, I can only go by what I read.

I would say the Hebrew word for virgin would be "bethulah".

As far as the word used in the original Hebrew version, I went back to your earlier post and I believe you are referring to Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 would be "almah".

Why do you ask???????



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Sun Matrix:
Fair enough, point taken. It's actually the first time I have heard anyone take this line, and I commend you for the originality shown. However, if you are saying that this was a one-off event that was to take place 120 years after Noah received the message to build the Ark, which I believe you are, why did it occur only 100 years later? From what I remember Noah only took 100 years to build the Ark and the flood lasted 40 days.

Aside from this, your take is based on your interpretation of the 120 year statement. It could also be interpreted as each one of man's days being equivalent in time to 120 years. Interpretation involves opinion's whereas facts make opinions redundant. Your interpretation of this is not a fact. In addition to this the story of Noah and the flood comes from the same source as the statement, thus is not proof that it happened. A conflict of interest exists. That's a fact.

If interpretation is required then there needs to be some direction like a legend or key telling the reader which areas need to be interpreted and which do not. How is that the Bible passages you use as "proof" need no interpretation, yet this statement does? How does one decide? What makes your interpretation correct and mine incorrect? Do you catch my drift?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   


Aside from this, your take is based on your interpretation of the 120 year If interpretation is required then there needs to be some direction like a legend or key telling the reader which areas need to be interpreted and which do not. How is that the Bible passages you use as "proof" need no interpretation, yet this statement does? How does one decide? What makes your interpretation correct and mine incorrect? Do you catch my drift?


Mytym, Notice that I didn't interpret anything. I just showed you what the Bible said. God said that he would make mans days 120 years and then I showed you that God said that he would destroy man from the face of the earth. Just like it says, no interpretation is needed. If an interpretation is needed, you will find that the Bible explains the Bible.




Fair enough, point taken. It's actually the first time I have heard anyone take this line, and I commend you for the originality shown. However, if you are saying that this was a one-off event that was to take place 120 years after Noah received the message to build the Ark, which I believe you are, why did it occur only 100 years later? From what I remember Noah only took 100 years to build the Ark and the flood lasted 40 days.

Good, we are getting somewhere. No I am not saying that the flood was to occur 120 years after Noah received the message to build the Ark.

I am saying that the flood happened 120 years after God decided to destroy all mankind, and 100 years after Noah was told to build the Ark.
I am going to take a break and then I will show you how that is possible.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
God said mans days would be 120 years and then he would destroy mankind. And God told Noah to build an Ark 100 years before the flood. How is it possible, given the scriptures? Watch.

God says at the end of Genesis 5 that Noah is 500 years old and has some sons.


Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.


Now watch what the Bible experts miss. In Genesis 6 it starts off, "And it came to pass". The scholars put this information together and read, " After Noah was 500 years old, it came to pass. That's not what it says. It says, "and it came to pass" When did it come to pass? "When men began to multiply on the face of the earth." NOT when Noah was 500 years old.



1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.


So from this point, all we have is that God said he would destroy man in 120 years. Notice in verse 7 that he says, "I will destroy man", not I will destroy man expect for Noah and his family.




7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Then it says in verse 8, "but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord". When did Noah find grace from the eyes of the Lord. Not when God decided to destroy the earth, but after that. Twenty years after that. Notice in verse 10 it says "and Noah begat 3 sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The exact thing that he says at the end of Genesis 5. What was the rest of it? "and Noah was 500 years old."

Noah was 500 years old when he found grace in the eyes of the Lord, NOT, when it came to pass.




8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Notice, that I didn't interpret anything, I just read what it said, and it all fits. The facts fit exactly, no interpretation needed.

I hope this helps. Do you have any other questions that I could try to answer?



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
In all respect. If all we have to call facts is masonic mans versions of the ancient tablets then we are in trouble. lol.

I will show you something thats a fact too, the name SHAKESPEAR encoded into psalm 46? by the number 46... has shakespeare taken his name from it or is it just coincidence?

Psalm 46, counting from the first word to the 46th, SHAKE is the 46th word.

Counting up from the bottom SPEAR is the 46th word.

psalm 46
word down 46
word up 46

I know it doesnt equal 666... but c'mon, theres a blatant 666..

what is special about 46? I know he was born in 1564 (64/46) doubt it means anything. I know reversed numbers mean a lot to the illuminati crews.


If thats not enough we have Gematia, greek, hebrew etc.... and the bible codes. What do you make of those?

Excuse my diagram i have to trust u will count the words. It depends on what bible you use they have swapped shake for something else, this was the new KJ21 www.biblegateway.com...

but its also in old printed bibles ive seen.




[edit on 27-3-2006 by Dimensional_Shifter]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Sun Matrix:
That's a very interesting and seemingly convincing tale.

However there is no mention that 20 years pass between the time God said he would destroy mankind and the time Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. That is your interpretation.

There is also no correlation between God destroying mankind AND it being in 120 years time. That is your interpretation. Interesting how you conveniently omitted Genesis 5:4,5 & 6 to create the impression that the destruction of mankind and the 120 years were to be taken as one.

When God mentions that man is also flesh he is implying that man is mortal, and placing a limit of 120 years on his lifespan. These are both mentioned in the same verse, not 4 verses apart as in the destruction of mankind. That is your interpretation.

No you didn't interpret anything except for everything I mentioned above. I just read what it said also and came up with an alternative meaning, yet according to your logic, I didn't interpret anything either.

I have proved my point, thus there is no need to TRY and answer any more of my questions. Don't feel too bad, at least you tried.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   


I am saying that the flood happened 120 years after God decided to destroy all mankind, and 100 years after Noah was told to build the Ark.


Sorry, but your incorrect.

6 "Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth."

Reading the biblical passages in question, in correct context you will see that you are indeed wrong, also doing the math and checking the chronology will again show your wrong. And if you look at the lifespans after the flood, they do indeed start to decline, leveling off at no more then 120 years.

3 ... "yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

4 "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown"

After he has said that he make's an observation for us. These giants were fornicating with ordinary people. In pagan religions the sons of (pick your diety) would fornicate and produce offspring with mortal humans that had superhuman power's or longer live's then normal mortals. When you remember this, the verse make's alot more sense along with God's decision to put a cap on our lifespan.

5 "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

That word bolded "then" means alot more then your giving it credit for. God had already said his days shall number 120 years, but he never not once give's a prophetic time scale for WHEN this will take place.

He goes on in 5 and says THEN I saw the wickedness of man. He hadn't made the decision to flood the earth untill THAT point in time. Which is why we see the word THEN in the context it is used.

7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

AFTER he had seen the wickedness of man AFTER he had decided upon how many days man's days would number, AFTER (THEN) all that, he THEN decide's to destroy mankind.

From the time in chapter 6 when Noah was 500 years old to the time the flood waters were upon the earth, only 600 years had gone past, not 120. Read 6:3 in correct context without applying new meaning to the verse.

His days shall number one hundered and twenty.

Now look at what happens to the lifespan of Noah's descendents. The life span goes down and levels off at 120 years of age.

Reading something in CONTEXT is very important.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Prot0n]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Prot0n]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   
SUNMATRIX,
Here's the thing, you keeping saying the Bible is "factual truth". Now it may be the truth and it may not be the truth, it may contain some truths and it may contain non-truths at the same time.
FACT is the bible as we know it was a collection or "canon" of books that was officially put together in 300 AD
by Constantine with the concil of Nicea.
Now, there were also books not included in the bible by the concil and today we refer to them as the "Gnostic books". Alot of the Gnostic books have a "different" view of things. This was said to be "heresy" by the concil/Roman church.
Now, who is to say that these Gnostic books do not also contain "truth"?
Well, the Roman church said they did not contain truth, but am I or anyone really supposed to just take the Roman church's word as what should and should not be truth?
The Roman church is FULL of controversy and murder, the inquistion, and the list goes on.

I could write a little more, but I will wait to see your answer to this post SUN MATRIX.
Also please excuse spelling errors as I am writing fast.

A lot of the Gnostic texts have a different view of Jesus from that of the books collected in the Bible.
How do we know what is true other then the Roman church told us what was true in 300 AD?

Also the only "historical" mention of Jesus outside of the bible is that there was a Jesus hung on a cross and he had followers. This was recorded by the roman historian Joseph (might not have spelled his name exactly right there).



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   


After he has said that he make's an observation for us. These giants were fornicating with ordinary people. In pagan religions the sons of (pick your diety) would fornicate and produce offspring with mortal humans that had superhuman power's or longer live's then normal mortals. When you remember this, the verse make's alot more sense along with God's decision to put a cap on our lifespan.


You just won't ever admit the truth, will you. Everything I said was exactly in context. I just didn't jump to a conclusion that Noah was 500 old when chapter 6 started. I just read what it said.

And again you are wrong about your comment about the lifespans of these superhumans being longer than normal men. I would look it up for you but you really don't want to see it.

Now what seems to be the problem with the Isaiah 7 translation?



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
You just won't ever admit the truth, will you.

Hmm. I'll admit it's the truth when you can prove Noah even existed, prove that everyone else on the planet died in a great flood [that means disproving the uniterupted existence of entire civilisations and cultures 5000 years ago] and prove there was a world wide flood.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by riley]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
You just won't ever admit the truth, will you.

Hmm. I'll admit it's the truth when you can prove Noah even existed, prove that everyone else on the planet died in a great flood [that means disproving the uniterupted existence of entire civilisations and cultures 5000 years ago] and prove there was a world wide flood.


We can prove there was a flood by the sedimentary layers all over the earth. Go mountain climbing and hunt for sea shells. It happened.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   


You just won't ever admit the truth, will you. Everything I said was exactly in context. I just didn't jump to a conclusion that Noah was 500 old when chapter 6 started. I just read what it said.


Your the one failing to admit the truth. And you did indeed take thing's out of context to "show" God was saying 120 years untill the flood, which is completly wrong.

And just so you can't squirm your way out of this fact, I will quote you again.



I am saying that the flood happened 120 years after God decided to destroy all mankind, and 100 years after Noah was told to build the Ark.


Ok, I see your problem now! In chapter 5, at the very end Noah is 500 years old. Then in the begining of chapter 6 God says what your interpreting as saying ...



I am saying that the flood happened 120 years after God decided to destroy all mankind


However, this CAN NOT be the case, if read in CONTEXT. Noah was 500 at the end of chapter 5. At the onset of the flood, noah was 600. There is NO 120 year gap at all, period.




Now what seems to be the problem with the Isaiah 7 translation?


Simple. The words themselve's and the words used. It should be quiet obvious. Then again, you are having trouble with the flood.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Prot0n]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
We can prove there was a flood by the sedimentary layers all over the earth. Go mountain climbing and hunt for sea shells. It happened.


Here is an idea. Go do a search on 'how mountains are formed'; tectonic plates collide. Unlike Noah's mythological flood.. this actually has happened and the sea shells and others fossils you speak of are indeed millions of years old.. not 5000. After you do that.. research sedimentary layers as well. There was a partial world flood about 15,000 years ago [end of the last ice age] but again Noah was ten thousand years too late for that one as well. Are you going to say the bible time line is wrong now so you can be right? I know.. facts can be so inconvenient sometimes.. :shk:

[edit on 27-3-2006 by riley]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   


Here's the thing, you keeping saying the Bible is "factual truth". Now it may be the truth and it may not be the truth, it may contain some truths and it may contain non-truths at the same time.
All truth.



FACT is the bible as we know it was a collection or "canon" of books that was officially put together in 300 AD by Constantine with the concil of Nicea. Now, there were also books not included in the bible by the concil and today we refer to them as the "Gnostic books". Alot of the Gnostic books have a "different" view of things. This was said to be "heresy" by the concil/Roman church.

Fact the Catholic Bible also contains extra books. Why?



Now, who is to say that these Gnostic books do not also contain "truth"?
Well, the Roman church said they did not contain truth, but am I or anyone really supposed to just take the Roman church's word as what should and should not be truth? The Roman church is FULL of controversy and murder, the inquistion, and the list goes on.


I agree with what you said about the Roman church. I think if you do a little research you will surprisingly find that the Roman Catholic and the Gnostics actually come from the same origin. Babylon.

I suggest that you read my Matrix thread to find out why this is so. The link won't work, but here it is. Alot can be skipped over as a bunch of extra things were added. You'll get the idea.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
If you build it, he will come..

How do you know this is not just a self fullfilling prophecy?
This book, written and edited by man, has been around for plenty of time
for man himself to set these things in motion.
As if it were nothing more than an instruction manual.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I thought, as the Subject Line would indicate, that we were talking about "facts" here.

Since we can't even establish to any reasonable standard the "fact" that Jesus existed, I think it would be doubly difficult to determine if this alleged person was the alleged Messiah foretold in patently non-factual to begin with Jewish prophecy.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   


As if it were nothing more than an instruction manual.



thats what it is, (The way Home)



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   


Source
The name Israel (Champion of God, or Ruling with God), is a title which was specially bestowed by God Himself upon Jacob, the ancestor of the Israel people.

Jacob-Israel had twelve sons, of whom Judah was the fourth. It is obvious, therefore, that Judah was one of the children of Israel, and equally obvious that the other eleven sons could not possibly have been Judah.

Each of these twelve sons founded a tribe, with the exception of Joseph, who founded two tribes through his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. There were thus, strictly speaking, thirteen tribes; but, inasmuch as the tribe of Levi had no territorial status but was dispersed throughout the other twelve tribes for the performance of special duties, it became customary to speak of the whole nation as the twelve tribes of Israel.


Mod Note: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 27-3-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join