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.

 

Who's stolen Christmas?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
sun matrix, if there were eyewitnesses, then why didn't they write anything down?

honestly, the literacy in the eastern part of the roman empire wasn't that low
it was actually above 50%

now, i'll take a conservative estimate and say there were only 5000 "witnesses" to the supposed works of jesus

why didn't any of them write anything about jesus down?

why do all our writings on jesus come from people born after the death of jesus?


Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul.




posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul.


why is it that the dating on the writings of those 5 dates to WELL AFTER THEY WOULD HAVE DIED?



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
They don't, so it would appear that your post is irrelevant.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
They don't, so it would appear that your post is irrelevant.


it's commonly accepted by nearly 100% of biblical scholars that matthew, mark, luke, and john were NOT written by matthew, mark, luke and john

why?
because all of the evidence (which i've brought up in a lot of other threads) points towards the gospels being written well after the figures died

and the writings of paul are mere accounts of what he said, not his actual writings



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Very interesting. You quoted me, yet I didn't say any of that.

I'm pretty sure there's a rule about deliberately changing quotes. Mods?


I do not think I deceived anybody by changing your quote around, and I apologize if I broke a rule. Changing the quote was a way of making a point, that all holidays, ones that are hundreds of years old, or only decades old, are "made up."



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Say what you like but don't say that I said it.


---


Actually, most of Paul's writings are his actual letters to various churches. If anything, they can be more easily ascribed to him than any other book can be ascribed to its writer.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I have only spoken to two credible experts on the subject (both being tenured collegiate professors,) but they both have stated that due to historical records alone it would have been impossible for Jesus to have lived during the same time as the Gospel authors. At best they were influenced by his teachings (if in fact they actually knew the Man,) for them to have written those documents they would have had to been under 14 years old at the death of Jesus as a conservative estimate (not mine but theres.)

Just to clarify this is coming from a Christian.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Matt., Mark, and Luke ( the earliest of which is Mark as I recall) all show
influences of Pauline tradition, meaning that they were penned "AFTER THE ADVENT OF PAULINE TRADITION."

A Given fact. Saul/Paul never knew Jeshua, Never Meet Jeshua, Had NO direct
Knowledge of the Rabbi Jeshua. His only DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of R. JESHUA
was the result of
Legend 1. He consummed to much wine and as a result " fell off his ass and
struck his head on a rock, resulting in his ""vision"". "
Legend 2. Succomed to heat stroke/heat prostration, fell off his ass with the same result as above.

In any event there are several FACTS that are consistant in all of the
legends/myths.
1. Saul was directly responsible and participated in the deaths of several
followers of R. Jeshua. Most noticably that of Stephan.

2.He had his " Vision/revelation/epiphany, while he was drunk/stoned/
insert term of choice here, OFF HIS ASS .

3. He ( Paul/Saul/ the Killer of Believers) The Roman of Tarsus, preached
his version of the life of R. Jeshua that became ( through the art of the
sellout.) the predominant version of xianity.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarpStrings
origin of christmas


But remember, these people had grown up in pagan customs, chief of which was this idolatrous festival of December 25th. It was a festival of merrymaking, with its special spirit. They enjoyed it! They did not want to give it up! Now this same article in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge explains how the recognition by Constantine of Sunday, which had been the day of pagan sun worship, and how the influence of the pagan Manichaeism, which identified the SON of God with the physical SUN, gave these pagans of the fourth century, now turning over wholesale to "Christianity," their excuse for calling their pagan-festival date of December 25th (birthday of the SUN-god) the birthday of the SON of God.


But if one worships YHWH and believes in Yeshua Messiah, then it ought to be forbidden in your very spirit (nature) to participate in celebrations pertaining to other deities! To deny the truth, is to deny Him. Truth isn't always decked with holly and silver and gold, but the the blood Yeshua Messiah shed for YOU is priceless, are you willing to sell your portion for ribbons and bows? Think about it
It's not too late to say enough is enough.

YHWH has several 'beautiful' ordained feast days/celebrations that He gave to His children, sadly though, most don't even know what they are.



Are you a Jehovah's witness ? No bias in asking just wondering ?


And for the record, I observe the birth of Christ on December 25th althought I doubt he was born on that day. It does not matter what other gods or goddesses used to be worshiped on that day as I do not worship or even acknowledge them as existing.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by RWPBR]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
There was this Doctor i remember hearing about. It seems he had a lot of books published and he had a theory about this. He said it had something to do with someone called: "The Grinch", I believe.

But, just because he was a doctor, doesn't mean he knew everything.

I think it is people's need to be liars. These days people seem to disregard their truth for being "politically correct".

What does "politically correct" mean to me?

It means not being honest, nor demonstrating integrity.

However, i would like to piggy-back off a post by Byrd. I think he eluded to the premise that the almighty $$$$ had something to do with it, and that it sold more Christmas cards if they were not Christmas cards, but Holiday cards. Makes cents for the corporate inquiry, then it makes sense to me.

Edited to add:

Eventually perhaps there will be enough people who are offended by the term "Happy Holidays", and holidays will also no longer be politically correct. Then where will we be? Probably at work on December 25th, that is where.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Well I consider myself on the verge of atheism, but even I can enjoy the Christmas trees and all the other decorations that are fun to observe. I think of it as a cultural celebration, why would anyone be offended by it? If you go to another country you will often see religious symbols, whether they are buddhist, hindu or muslim. Shall we tear down roman architecture because it has religious symbols on it? It's foolish to be offended by this. I'll be travelling soon and I'm dissapointed that I won't see any christmas lights or trees at SeaTac airport this year.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by southern_cross3
They don't, so it would appear that your post is irrelevant.


it's commonly accepted by nearly 100% of biblical scholars that matthew, mark, luke, and john were NOT written by matthew, mark, luke and john

why? because all of the evidence (which i've brought up in a lot of other threads) points towards the gospels being written well after the figures died

and the writings of paul are mere accounts of what he said, not his actual writings


I'm not at all sure that any of this is correct. The actual evidence certainly doesn't support such ideas.

But suppose for a moment that 100% of biblical scholars said this. Why do we accept this authority? Don't we think for ourselves?

After all, 100% of scholars of anthropology stated that Jews were subhuman -- in Nazi Germany. Do we imagine that the people who control the media agenda of our times are indifferent on these issues? Who do we imagine does the appointments?

In 1936 it was the "assured result of scientific investigation" that John's gospel was composed around 170 AD. Then a fragment of a physical copy of John's gospel was found (not by a biblical scholar, but by a paleographer, who wasn't going to be told by non-specialists what date that fragment was) which was dated to 125 AD and could hardly be the autograph. The "assured result of scientific investigation" was promptly shown to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

And why were these scholars -- especially German scholars -- so keen to date all the gospels late? Well they were promoting the claims of the heretic Marcion, ca. 140 AD. Why would they do that? Well, does it help to know that Marcion rejected the Old Testament, called the Jewish God 'evil' and purged the New Testament of "Jewish Interpolations"? Does it help to know that German scholars of the same period were unanimous that Lucian of Samosata was (a) Jewish and (b) derivative nonense, which opinion has been shown to be derived not from scholarship but directly from an anti-semitic speech by Houston Stewart Chamberlain?

We need not be very suspicious to know that on matters of politics and religion scholars speak only as laymen, and invariably reflect the opinions of those who control their budgets.

Let's have fewer appeals to 'authority' and more evidence. It is quite impossible, given the above fragment of papyrus, for John to be dated later than the fourth quarter of the 1st century (when John was still alive); quite impossible for Acts to be written later than 61 AD (when Paul was in prison), since it is pretty hard to imagine the author ignoring it if Paul was then released; Peter and Paul martyred; the temple destroyed; and Christianity made illegal. The ancient evidence dates Mark to the same sort of period, at least in first draft (which probably explains why Luke made some use of his stuff). It also says that Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic, which sort of explains how a Greek version has been augmented from Luke also. Nothing in any of this requires any date other than the obvious.

Whether Christianity is true or not is one thing. But let's not play games or pretend that it didn't arise in more or less the usual way for ideological movements. It obviously did. They all do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Well I consider myself on the verge of atheism, but even I can enjoy the Christmas trees and all the other decorations that are fun to observe. I think of it as a cultural celebration, why would anyone be offended by it? If you go to another country you will often see religious symbols, whether they are buddhist, hindu or muslim. Shall we tear down roman architecture because it has religious symbols on it? It's foolish to be offended by this. I'll be travelling soon and I'm dissapointed that I won't see any christmas lights or trees at SeaTac airport this year.


Absolutely. Some atheists seem *obsessed*. Surely there is a big wide world out there, and if some people enjoy Christmas trees -- and small children undoubtedly do -- then good for them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join