Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is the Cross Just Another Lie? (Revised)

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Good points you bring up. I believe jesus did not exist though. if you do reasearch you find the bible is an astrological story. jesus is nothing more than a representation of our sun.




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Just a side bar but one that is significant: The Jesus of the Bible that was loving, wise, and one that would hold to righteous standards would have known all about pagan rituals, symbols and teachings - surrounded as he was with Roman and Hellenistic beliefs. The Jews recognized the pagan aspects of the cross and would not be attached to it as it represented a false god - Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name).

He would have understood very well the use of the cross and the trinity (which were linked back to ancient Egypt) and their abhorrent background. He would have instructed his followers to "stay away from the unclean things." Anything that remotely was attached to idol worship would have been rebuked.

Heavenly congress would not have allowed Jesus' death to be one that was attached to something that had such pagan origins. Great pains were taken to insure that prophecy was fulfilled as it was established millenniums before. Approx. 327 prophesies were fulfilled in Jesus.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Sorry double post...forgot the link.


[edit on 27-3-2008 by dk3000]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Here is the video I was search for that begins with a very neat introduction on the power of symbolism- the cross and others. It is well done and supports the OP's material....IMO

www.talismanicidols.org...



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by doctorex
 



Also tests have been done that prove nails in the hands do hold the weight of a human.


This is why I listed 10 items and not just one. You only countered one but it still did not answer sufficiently the argument. Please read especially #'s: 4,5,8 and then read the rest again and find challenging arguments outside of opinion which does not count.


Well actually I wasn't talking to you when I mentioned the tests on the nails in hands holding body weight, but since you asked me to adress some of your points...

In point 4 you mentioned that crucifiction was not a method used by Jews to kill people, but nobody said it had been. It was the Romans who executed Jesus, and they used their methods.

In point 5 you seem to be stating theat Jesus had too die quickly to fulfill the passover, but nothing was mentioned about the passover lamb having to die quickly, but eaten quickly.

In point 8 you mention that some had survived the cross, but I bet they didn't have a spear thrust through their side, as mentioned in the Gospels, and as I pointed out earlier, the main pole/stake/pile, call it what you will was often kept in place permanently with the cross beam, with the person nailed to it, hoisted up, so Jesus was hung on a stake/pile/pole, so no big deal there either.

I have no intention of arguing this with you, you have already made up your mind that the crucifiction was false, and you have the right to do that. I was simply pointing out that much of what you base your theory on is stuff that you have obviously looked at with an already decided mindset and read into it what you wanted to, like "AHAA! It wasn't a cross they hung him on! It must all be a lie!" without realising the actual technique of crucifying somebody. If you did it would have all made sense.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorex

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by doctorex
 



Also tests have been done that prove nails in the hands do hold the weight of a human.


This is why I listed 10 items and not just one. You only countered one but it still did not answer sufficiently the argument. Please read especially #'s: 4,5,8 and then read the rest again and find challenging arguments outside of opinion which does not count.


Well actually I wasn't talking to you when I mentioned the tests on the nails in hands holding body weight, but since you asked me to adress some of your points...

In point 4 you mentioned that crucifiction was not a method used by Jews to kill people, but nobody said it had been. It was the Romans who executed Jesus, and they used their methods.
exactly, roman crucifiction is well known a being a death by oscifciation.



In point 5 you seem to be stating theat Jesus had too die quickly to fulfill the passover, but nothing was mentioned about the passover lamb having to die quickly, but eaten quickly.
jesus had to die quickly to furfill the prophecy in isaiah that no bone would be broken. it was common practice to break the legs so as to quicken death, because most who were crucified would push up so as to breath. this ¨custom¨ is pointless if the person is hung from a cross beam as they would have discomfort, not problems breathing



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 


Thank you for the video. It does indeed support the research I have done in my thread.

I recognize that this is a very hard thing to swallow, to believe that perhaps much of what we have been taught could be a Lie. But would it not be better to learn it now, rather than to continue to be duped?

Of course a believer could continue to worship false idols, symbols or emblems because it has sentimental or romantic value. But I ask this:

But who is going to champion Jesus and his truths? If a person says they love Jesus and believe that he existed, would it not be loving to at least consider that many things attached to him may not be true? Does his truth not matter?

Are we to be codependent in order not to offend others while slighting Jesus? What if we are right??



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
7. The idea of Christ dying on a cross did not really enter the religious picture until the time of Constantine in the 4th century. He was said to have had dreams involving crosses and is said to have seen crosses in the sky. He took this as an omen and added this philosophy to the Church beliefs (apparently not knowing the pagan history behind it). His mother Helena could have contributed to the sanctifying of this emblem by incorporating this into Christianity.


From what I understand, Constantine was a follower of Mithras before he 'converted' to Christianity. The Tau T (literally a 'T') is the symbol of Mithras. Hmmm.

Kinda blows the whole crucifix thing out of the water.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jordan5491
 



Good points you bring up. I believe jesus did not exist though. if you do reasearch you find the bible is an astrological story. jesus is nothing more than a representation of our sun.


Would it not be possible that Jesus would fit into the earthly manifestation of the astrological story you are talking about? Could there not be two stories taking place, both interlocking?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Having read through this thread, I have found a couple of MMs where posters must have forgotten civlity. OK, Read my thread here, at least the opening post, before going any further:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Consider this carefully.

'nuff said.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 



From what I understand, Constantine was a follower of Mithras before he 'converted' to Christianity. The Tau T (literally a 'T') is the symbol of Mithras. Hmmm.

Kinda blows the whole crucifix thing out of the water.


Here is an interesting quote by: Manley P. Hall who authored, "The Secret Teachings of all Ages: An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic, and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy" said:

"Yet the cross itself is the oldest of phallic emblems - The very structure of the church itself is permeated with (sexual symbolism) phallicism. Remove from the Christian Church all emblems of Priapic origin and nothing is left."

Other scholars have linked the cross to; the Greek Bacchus (Babylonian Bacchus who was in irony; their Messiah), the Tyrian Tammuz (I mentioned earlier), the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
He would have understood very well the use of the cross and the trinity (which were linked back to ancient Egypt) and their abhorrent background. He would have instructed his followers to "stay away from the unclean things." Anything that remotely was attached to idol worship would have been rebuked.


Then why then did the apostles put so much faith in the cross, which is clearly an idol? You see, I see much of what Jesus said sounds good and loving, but the majority of it is up to the reader to understand. If you presume Jesus was the son of God and the one who saved us, like most Christian converts do upon first reading the Bible, then of course everything he said and his apostles say put his words into a good light.

But after all this time, the obvious thing escaped me and that is that I presumed something I shouldn't have. No one should read the Bible with the presumption already instilled that Jesus is the central message, and that's how its presented. The central message of anything considered "spiritual" should be God/the creator. Jesus, without actually saying so, sets himself up as a mediator or go between to God through idolatry. That is what I now see. This makes me question his validity at all, because maybe he was someone else (if he even existed), and that he is actually trying to weed out the majority who will fall for his scheme.

When I decided Jesus himself no longer saved me, I felt what seemed like countless demons leaving my body. They were all in turmoil and conflict and did not want me to understand this.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


Its funny- the video I posted has its own thread! Didn't see that one coming as I have the original website bookmarked. I really hope the DVD is available by Christmas this year!

Who is going to champion Jesus was your question.

Here is my answer:

I believe that Jesus did exist and he (IMO) did not want anyone to champion him. He wanted people to think for ourselves. He shared his experiences and what he learned for himself- probably to show via his own experiences in the event someone walked down a similar path. I believe he pointed out obstacles in the event the information could be applied to "inspire" the hope that his listener would come up with a successful solution to removing their own obstacle. Hence, think for ourselves even in the gravest and darkest of situations.

If someone wishes to worship false idols- this maybe their path. The false Idol remark may have been a mere warning as to the power of imagery and its effect- rather than a warning of burning in hell or some such nonsense or jealous god bullpuckey.

It does seem constant in that people who seek guidance from an outside source are prone to being a hypnotized drone- if you will, which is possibly hell in and of itself!

The only freedom I have ever experienced/felt is by thinking for myself- even when it leads to a negative place.

I have come believe this is what the man was talking about and I came to this by myself and I have never been happier.

I believe the message from Jesus is not to be codependent- and the corruption of this message was designed to keep us codependent.




[edit on 28-3-2008 by dk3000]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ben91069
 



The central message of anything considered "spiritual" should be God/the creator. Jesus, without actually saying so, sets himself up as a mediator or go between to God through idolatry. That is what I now see. This makes me question his validity at all, because maybe he was someone else (if he even existed), and that he is actually trying to weed out the majority who will fall for his scheme.


You are bringing up valid points! Here is my take;

I do not believe for one second that he started a religion called Christianity. It is my belief that much of what he actually said, was diluted, exaggerated or stretched (the concept of the Synoptic Gospels would seem to support what I am saying). Mankind made him the God! So what could have been his mission in coming to earth, if religion has it wrong?

It could have helped Jah to have a shift in his intolerance towards man (think of the Matrix!). Because Jesus gained first hand experience and then shared his experience with heavenly congress - later. This I believe, is the whole reason for the ransom sacrifice: to consume the virus of shame that had existed for four thousand years, and by his sacrificial death, offered man a fresh opportunity to deal with this inherited virus. He in essence became a symbolic injection - an antidote!

I think it is a dichotomy that Paul made a religion of Christ when Christ came to show brilliantly how religion does not, nor cannot work for the betterment of mankind. Jesus strove to educate man in a different way, and wanted to show us that we could be free from bondage to religious leaders and religious dogma and pagan beliefs. To live by the principles of the Mosaic Law, yet not be in bondage to it. The ability to develop consciences not spurred on by any religion, but by free will, and to use this free will to the worship of his Father.

He was never to replace his Father, nor to be worshiped. Consider that he might actually be just the beginning - leading to something that is quite a bit bigger than what he represented.

Perhaps he was part of a big contest or plan to help man discover and expose what the actual truths are? Maybe these are the questions that are now coming to light and being answered?

Where enlightenment could come in is in the possibility that Jesus was only the beginning and not the end! I do not think that the message that Jah is trying to relate - ended in Jesus.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 



I believe the message from Jesus is not to be codependent- and the corruption of this message was designed to keep us codependent.


Very clever! I would agree. All religion requires allegiance in one form or another. How many would be accepted in their religion if they started to renounce the cross? Many original beliefs or doctrines become adulterated and when one rallies against them are called a "false prophet."

I would rather be called a false prophet than experience this dilemma:

"A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist."
"However," replied the Universe,
"The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."
- Stephen Crane from "War is Kind" 1899



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
The symbolism of the nail triad is a hoax. As is the Cross as a symbol of Christ's crucifixion.

The cross was 'legalized' as a symbol by the Roman Emperor Constantine (as in Constantinople) through the Edict of Milan. He was the first Christian, Roman Emperor, and used his conversion as a tool to control his subjects, some of which had been practicing Christianity illegally since the 'time of Christ'.

As luck would have it, Constantine's mother happened upon a Cache of Christian Relics in the holy land, including the crucifixion nails, to aid in the propaganda of this New Christian Empire.


Before the time of Constantine, Christianity was illegal within the Roman Empire, and the use of such a flagrant symbol as the cross would not have been condoned. That is where the symbol of the fish came about that you see on the back of SUVs, the fish secretly pointed the way to 'Church'. Under Constantine, the Cross was perpetrated as the symbol, due to the symbolism of the Cache his mother found, and also as Constantine's personal symbol in Battle.

If the Posts feature were available, I would readily be able to point you toward similar threads on the topic of the symbolism of the Cross. I cannot justify wasting my own time once again to find all the research previously provided on the topic, but I highly recommend looking deeply into the Edict of Milan, and on to all the leads that you find because of it. A cursory search either here at ATS or the greater Google, will provide much detail.

So to Answer the title of this thread, YES!
DocMoreau



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
A few things to mention about what I believe and what I think about what you believe.
1) Jesus died.
2) Most likey he was crucified as the punishment normaly used for his crime.
3) There seems to be no reason to use the cross as a religious symbol.
4) There is no magical power in the cross and the blood of Jesus is symbolic of the fact that he did die a violent death.

My church did not have a cross on top of the building or inside.
We did not wear crosses or put a cross on our bible.
We recognized that the cross was a pagen symbol and avoided its use, as much as possibe.

In his death, Jesus suffered the same experience that he would have had if he had actually deserved it.
He died in a way that was not just typical of what everyone goes through, but died the sort of death that those who are judged and written out of the book of Life woud have died, never to return.

God has seen fit to abate his anger against the world at large on account of the death of Jesus who should have been made king.
On account of the efforts of Jesus and his obedience to God, we are given a period of time to accept Jesus as being the intercessor between man and God.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 



The cross was 'legalized' as a symbol by the Roman Emperor Constantine (as in Constantinople) through the Edict of Milan. He was the first Christian, Roman Emperor, and used his conversion as a tool to control his subjects, some of which had been practicing Christianity illegally since the 'time of Christ'.


Exactly! Here is my info to corroborate what you have just said:

From, "The Ecclesiastical Review" comes this; "It may be safely asserted that only after the edict of Milan A.D. 312, was the cross used as the permanent sign of our redemption. De Rossi positively states that no monogram of Christ, discovered in the catacombs or other places, can be traced to a period anterior to the year 312. Even after that epoch making year, the church, then free and triumphant, contented herself with having a simple monogram of Christ: the Greek letter chi vertically crossed by a rho, and horizontally sometimes, by an iota. The oldest crucifix mentioned as an object of public worship is the one venerated in the Church of Narbonne in southern France as early as the 6th century."

Thank you for your post!



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



My church did not have a cross on top of the building or inside.
We did not wear crosses or put a cross on our bible.
We recognized that the cross was a pagen symbol and avoided its use, as much as possibe.


You are ahead of many churches! You obviously are not adverse to checking out the facts.






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join