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.
Originally posted by uberarcanist
Hit the ground hard enough, blood and guts are going to go everywhere.
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
It certainly looks like that one of our bibles has got it wrong May i ask which Bible you are using?
The word "vinegar" derives from the Old French vin aigre, meaning "sour wine." Louis Pasteur showed in 1864 that vinegar results from a natural fermentation process.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
... why do you think that the Bible was written for interpretation in the modern day?
Originally posted by 11an
Sun Matrix
Your assumptions are wrong.At worst I have made an erronous misstake by falling for a common internet myth, without checking out it´s credibility.
Mea culpa.
I have not read the Da vinci code.Implying this and telling me to do "real" research is regarded by me as a form of cheap shot.
Nevertheless that doesn´t take away the questions of possible heavy interpolation and other frauds of biblica texts...including the possibility of leaving out some texts...wich Im not alone in thinking..
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Sun Matrix
....the Bible is accurate on including all the prophecies.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
sun, point out one prophecy in the bible that has come to pass.
1 As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him, "Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!"
2 Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down."
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
except for jesus' superfulous virgin birth, the fact that he could be descended from david on his father's side (which would mean it doesn't count),
This is the lines as traced through Joseph. They are the bloodlines of a King thru the House of David.
External Source
Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias F1 begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost
Text
These are the bloodlines of Mary. They are the bloodlines of a priest through the lineage of Levi and through the House of David. Jesus had both the blood lineage of a king and priest in the Order of Melchizedek.
External Source
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
You are possibly aware that the lineage in Matthew thru Joseph(the adopted father) was the line of kingship and the lineage in Luke thru Mary his mothers line was the line of priesthood. The Messiah was both king and priest.
We know that the seed line is always considered the male. But in Genesis it prophesies that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent. There we get a virgin birth with God being the father, hence the Son of God.
There is absolutely no lineage problems whatsoever. You can be sure of that because the Jews are meticulous keepers of lineage because they have to be. They know that the Messiah will come thru the lineage of the House of David. If there was a lineage problem this "Jesus is the Messiah" thing would have stopped dead in it's tracks. As you can see, everything that was prophesied happened.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the fact that he wasn't called emmanuel (sorry if i butchered the spelling) even though the prophecy specifically states the messiah will be called such.
When Christmas comes and millions and millions and millions of people sing: Oh Come, Oh Come, Emmanuel maybe you will take a second to realize that...................... "They will call his name Emmanuel."
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I suggest you look at something simple like Ezekiel 37 which accutately predicts the rebirth of Israel as a nation. How is it possible that a people is spread all over the world as predicted and 2000 years later is reformed as a nation as predicted.
We also see the same fulfulled prophecy in Isaiah 66. The prophecy was fulfilled almost 2000 years from the destruction of Israel. Israel was born in a day on May 15th 1948.
External Source
Isaiah 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Mark 13:1-2
1 As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him, "Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!"
2 Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down."
Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple of Herod the Great. In A.D. 70 the temple is completely destroyed by the Romans and is set on fire.
Mark usually appears second in the New Testament after the Gospel of Matthew and traditionally Matthew was thought to be the first gospel to be composed with Mark the second. However most contemporary scholars date Mark to the late 60s or the early 70s, and, contrary to the traditional view, regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels,[3] and a source for material in the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke.
Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
Well its easy to write about something that has already taken place beforehand
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So I ask all of you, why do you think that the Bible was written for interpretation in the modern day?
Originally posted by St Udio
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
... why do you think that the Bible was written for interpretation in the modern day?
in short the Bible wasn't written to be read by the masses in the first place
the few writings by some early christian cultists, became labled as 'gospels' later on by the 'church'
basically only learned men, which included schooled (& subservient) monks who learned reading & writing...
had any access or knowledge of these spiritual & esorteric accounts and ideological 'lessons' of a 'Path' for the 'believers' to follow.
A later formed religious heirarchy, -> counter-parts to the Sadducees & Pharisees' who condemmed the Christ in the 1st place
Originally posted by emjoi
Ezekiel 37 does foretell of the state Israel being eventually created, though I'd be interested as to how you got the 2000 year date out of it.
Of course if a Jewish state has been a strong desire of Jews pretty much for the past 2000 years, (and further encouraged by prophesies such as this) then it's a prediction that had a fair chance of occurring. Simply because alot of Jews worked to make it occur.
So I'm not convinced yet.
Throw up another Prophesy.
I'm interested to explore this.
As stated in Ezekiel 44:1-2, NIV translation:
"Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it."
Originally posted by emjoi
Ezekiel 37 does foretell of the state Israel being eventually created, though I'd be interested as to how you got the 2000 year date out of it.
Hosea 6:2
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Originally posted by RANT
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So I ask all of you, why do you think that the Bible was written for interpretation in the modern day?
'Cause I'm a Roman and Constantine is my Emperor. Duh.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and why are you ignoring my challenge to show a single prophecy that came to pass that we were informed was going to come to pass?
Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Let me take the time to inform you that ALL of the prophecies are going to come to pass.
You are currently witnessing the fulfillment of Jeremiah 50 and 51 and Isaiah 13 even as we type.
But...............can the blind man see?