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.

 

Did Jesus kill ?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
According to the gospel of Thomas:

Thomas’ Gospel Of The Infancy Of Jesus Christ.

When this boy, Jesus, was five years old, he was playing at the ford of a rushing stream. (2) He was collecting the flowing water into ponds and made the water instantly pure. He did this with a single command. (3) He then made soft clay and shaped it into twelve sparrows. He did this on the sabbath day, and many other boys were playing with him.
(4)But when a Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the sabbath day, he immediately went off and told Joseph, Jesus' father: "See here, your boy is at the ford and has taken mud and fashioned twelve birds with it, and so has violated the sabbath."
(5)So Joseph went there, and as soon as he spotted him he shouted, "Why are you doing what's not permitted on the sabbath?"
(6)But Jesus simply clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows: "Be off, fly away, and remembe' me, you who are now alive!" And the sparrows took off and flew away noisily.
(7)The Jews watched with amazement, then left the scene to report to their leaders what they had seen Jesus doing.

3 The son of Annas the scholar, standing there with Jesus, took a willow branch and drained the water Jesus had collected. (2)Jesus, however, saw what had happened and became angry, saying to him, "Damn you, you irreverent fool! What harm did the ponds of water do to you? From this moment you, too, will dry up like a tree, and you'll never produce leaves or root or bear fruit."
(3) In an instant the boy had completely withered away.
Then Jesus departed and left for the house of Joseph. (4)The parents of the boy who had withered away picked him up and were carrying him out, sad because he was so young. And they came to Joseph and accused him: "It's your fault - your boy did this."

4 Later he was going through the village again when a boy ran and bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, "You won't continue your journey." (2)And all of a sudden, he fell down and died.
(3)Some people saw what had happened and said, "Where has this boy come from? Everything he says happens instantly!"
(4)The parents of the dead boy came to Joseph and blamed him saying, "Because you have such a boy, you can't live with us in the village, or else teach him to bless and not curse. He's killing our children!"

5 So Joseph summoned his child and admonished him in private, saying, "Why are you doing all this? These people are suffering and so they hate and harass us." (2)Jesus said, "I know that these are not your words, still, I'll keep quiet for your sake. But those people must take their punishment." There and then his accusers became blind.

www.cygnus-study.com...

Interesting reading and I suppose from an objective viewpoint (free from emotive agenda) this is a good example of why some people pick and choose which gospels to beleive.




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
True Christian do not pick and choose which divinely inspired gospels to follow. The Bible contains everything that is true, and each of the books of the Bible should be strictly believed and followed. There are, however, many apocryphal books that are not divinely inspired. Those books are rejected due to the fact that they are not truth.

The Gospel of Thomas is one of those books.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by one_enlightened_mind
 


Thanks for the reply - didn't a group of politicians just compile certain books they 'assumed' to be 'divinely inspired' and wilfully ignored the rest?

In other words -just cherrypicked the good bits.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by one_enlightened_mind
 


Thanks for the reply - didn't a group of politicians just compile certain books they 'assumed' to be 'divinely inspired' and wilfully ignored the rest?


You are referring, of course, to that famous gathering of Christian leaders who were all forced to agree on a doctrinal statement.

What many people forget about the conclusion of this little meeting is that in the short-term the council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss and a period of conflict and upheaval continued for some time.

So... in a sense there really was no solid conclusion for quite some time after the fact.

The books included in the Bible all tie together because they are all divinely inspired. We know this because what is predicted about and discussed in the Old Testament materializes in the New Testament. Every book is in perfect alignment with another and no contradictions exist... for those who actually understand the text.

Perhaps someone can explain it better. I'm not the best with words...



[edit on 23-4-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
The books included in the Bible all tie together because they are all divinely inspired. We know this because what is predicted about and discussed in the Old Testament materializes in the New Testament. Every book is in perfect alignment with another and no contradictions exist... for those who actually understand the text.


Well thanks for sharing your opinion - to my mind the absolute opposite is true and the bible is positively littered with blatant contradictions,glaring inconsistencies,scientific inaccuracies and factual discrepencies.

Here are just a few examples -I think you'll find the 423 questions at this link interesting:

Contradictions:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...


Other:

Scientific:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Absurdity:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Prophecy:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
to my mind the absolute opposite is true and the bible is positively littered with blatant contradictions,glaring inconsistencies,scientific inaccuracies and factual discrepencies.


Just as I said earlier, if you understad the text, there are no contradictions or falicies. I will take a closer look at your examples, though, and see if I can decipher them for you.



Contradictions:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...


The link seems to have a lot of contradictions, and I cannot cover them all, so let's just look at the first one.

Q: How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

A: three hundred. Just three hundred. No more, and no less.

How do i know? 2 Samuel 23:8 is talking about a Tachmonite who was a chief among the captains. 1 Chronicles 11:11 is talking about Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, who was the chief of the captains. Jashobeam killed 300.



Scientific:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...


This one is a problem word for the translators. The word used in the original text is "Sherets" and means teeming or swarming things, creepers, swarmers of insects, animals, small reptiles, quadrupeds. So you see, that last part of the definition was a little confusing. This does not make the science inaccurate. It simply means the translator is human.



Absurdity:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...


Ok... so man has tamed beasts. Big deal? This verse is not implying that God made them tame. It was an example of what man has accomplished, and that is apparent in the context of the entire chapter.



Prophecy:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...


This final one I am not too sure about. The example seems to change everytime I visit... browser error? So... what is it, specifically, you are refering to? I will do my best to get you an answer.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Ah, thought this thread title implied a Biblical source, but can see that it does not. I'll have to read this other sermon ('Gospel of Thomas') again sometime as I don't recall this being the case. To those who believe this should be part of the Bible, I'd invite them to learn when the 'Gospel of Thomas' was written, by whom, and for what reason. This should provide much needed clarity as to the claim of events it is said to be a 'record' of. Remember as well that Jesus was without sin and murder is a sin. In summary to answer the original poster's question, no Jesus did not kill.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I see nothing wrong with the stories you tell. Do onto others as you would like done to yourself. All the people in your stories were trying to pick fights with Jesus and they got what they deserved. One thing i cant stand is how athiest think christians are suppose to take their abuse, always trying to push the buttons of christians to see what will happen, simple you get punished. Its actually quite the opposite. Live by the sword die by the sword.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 






Originally posted by karl 12
Well thanks for sharing your opinion - to my mind the absolute opposite is true and the bible is positively littered with blatant contradictions,glaring inconsistencies,scientific inaccuracies and factual discrepencies.




Good post.

And that's not even mentioning the "permitted" incest.. (lot and daughters, adam and eve et al.)

many, many contradictions and discrepancies.

[edit on 24/4/09 by blupblup]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by one_enlightened_mind
 


Who is it who deems these book divine inspired or not? Constantine? The Pope? Or any Christian who sees it fit.

It seems it is still "pick and choose", because it is MAN who has determined (picked and chose) which books are divine inspired.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by gnosis111
Who is it who deems these book divine inspired or not? Constantine? The Pope? Or any Christian who sees it fit.


The best answer is a study of the Council of Nicea, seeing who it was comprised of, the reason for the meeting, and the result thereof. No-one wants to answer to God for botching up His word. This was a responsibility taken both seriously and carefully. All the best on the study and would be interested in hearing your conclusions from it.


Originally posted by gnosis111
It seems it is still "pick and choose", because it is MAN who has determined (picked and chose) which books are divine inspired.


Negative, any or all of the Bible can be verified directly with God Himself. When you have a personal relationship with Him, all you need to do is ask. For example, "God, I'm getting conflicting information here. The Joe is saying this, but the Bible is saying that. What's correct here?" Answer will be forthcoming, even if not in the manner expected.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by one_enlightened_mind
 


Who is it who deems these book divine inspired or not? Constantine? The Pope? Or any Christian who sees it fit.


Thats a very good question



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
And that's not even mentioning the "permitted" incest..


Not to mention the glorified depictions of genocide,infanticide,filicide,rape and murder.

Theres also a great deal of getting stoned:
www.belowtopsecret.com...


John Hartung makes a good point in this quote:

"The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality, complete with instructions for genocide, enslavement of out-groups, and world domination. But the Bible is not evil by virtue of its objectives or even its glorification of murder, cruelty, and rape . Many ancient works do that-The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the tales of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the ancient Mayans, for example. But no one is selling the Iliad as a foundation for morality. Therein lies the problem".
John Hartung.

Cheers.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



Very true..... It literally is (the bible) the most disgustingly violent, sadistic, sexually depraved and morally abhorrent book on the market.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Doesn't matter if he was pious all his life or not, what matters is his surroundings.

IF Jesus was a true living person then he was alive in a bloodthirsty kinda era. Dog eat dog kinda stuff.
Faced with the right scenario, Jesus would have stabbed and hacked and sliced and cut just like any other man.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NathanNewZealand
Faced with the right scenario, Jesus would have stabbed and hacked and sliced and cut just like any other man.


But therein lies the contradiction....

What about "turn the other cheek?"

"love thy neighbour, and thy enemy?"


Too many contradictions man...



[edit on 27/4/09 by blupblup]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Some interesting quotes on non-confirmed gospel authorship:


"... Now, today, scholars of the New Testament wouldn't agree with Irenaeus, because we don't know who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, any more than we know who wrote the Gospel of Thomas. They're all attributed to disciples of Jesus, but we don't really know who wrote them. And we don't know whether they came as the earliest sources or not. In fact, chances are they didn't..."
Elaine H. Pagels, The Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion Princeton University



"... It may surprise people to know that it's really not until the year 367 that we have a list of New Testament books that conforms exactly to the list of the twenty-seven books we would call the New Testament today.
So throughout the second and third centuries there was quite a lot of fighting about which ones are in and which ones not..."
Elizabeth Clark, John Carlisle Kilgo Professor of Religion and Director of the Graduate Program in Religion Duke University



"The four gospels that we find in the New Testament, are of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three of these are usually referred to as the "synoptic gospels," because they look at things in a similar way, or they are similar in the way that they tell the story.
Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well..."
L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin



"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies. I mean, there are all sorts of details about Jesus that they're simply not interested in giving us. They are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist's position..."
Paula Fredriksen, William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University



"Well, there are what we might identify as contradictions in the account. Some of this has to do with our methodology. If we want to read the gospels as eye witness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way. I mean that there are certain concerns that are being addressed in this literature. And we become theologically and even historically tone deaf to those concerns, if we don't give them due consideration.
It's now consensus in the New Testament scholarship to some extent [that]... in the gospels we're dealing with theologians, people who are reflecting theologically on Jesus already. And there's all indication that what we now refer to as theological reflection was there at the very beginning of things...

... Well, they don't claim to be eye witness accounts of his life. I don't think that the people who are responsible for those documents were staying up at night worried about those kinds of things. They're making certain arguments and they have concerns..., and they are articulating those arguments and they're forwarding those concerns based on what they know and what other people know about what Jesus said and did."
Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School



"... What the gospels do share, of course, is Jesus. But that is almost trivial to say that. Because they are interested in not simply repeating Jesus. They are interested in interpreting Jesus. Matthew, even when he has Mark in front of him, will change what Jesus says. And that's what's most important for me, to understand the mind of an evangelist.
It is that Matthew is saying, "I will change Mark so that Mark's Jesus speaks to my people." Now, there's a logic to his change. He's not just changing it to be difficult.
He will change Mark, but what Jesus says in Mark does not make sense to Matthew's people.... What is consistent about the gospels is that they change consistent with their own theology, with their own communities' needs. They do not change at random. If you begin to understand how Matthew changes Mark, you see it worked again and again and again.
You don't have to make up a different reason for every change. Once you understand Matthew's theology, you can almost predict how he will change.
For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is extremely troubling."
John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University



Encyclopedia - Synoptic problem:
The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional belief is that all the books were written by the apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke).
Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for Hebrews, no serious question about the authorship of any of the books as listed above was raised in the church before the 18th century, when critical inquiry into the New Testament began....

...The problems with correctly assigning authorship to ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels.

Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels" ("seeing-together").
The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the synoptic problem.
How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person?--Encyclopedia



On the Gospel of St Thomas:


There is a growing consensus among scholars that the Gospel of Thomas – discovered over a half century ago in the Egyptian desert – dates to the very beginnings of the Christian era and may well have taken first form before any of the four traditional canonical Gospels.
During the first few decades after its discovery several voices representing established orthodox biases argued that the Gospel of Thomas (abbreviated, GTh) was a late-second or third century Gnostic forgery. Scholars currently involved in Thomas studies now largely reject that view, though such arguments will still be heard from orthodox apologists and are encountered in some of the earlier publications about Thomas.

Today most students would agree that the Gospel of Thomas has opened a new perspective on the first voice of the Christian tradition. Recent studies centered on GTh have led to a stark reappraisal of the forces and events forming "orthodoxy" during the second and third centuries

www.gnosis.org...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
although i have not read all the above posts it is interesting to hear that if a book says bad things about jesus it is automatically a forgery or a bunch of lies or it is one of those books not deemed relevant according to god.

what aload of bull. it is about time these scrols or whatever they are are given to us in their entirety so we can see for ourselves who is telling the truth and who has been doing this for a slice of the cash cow which religion is.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join