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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
First, I want to say something that I didn't quite see mentioned here. That being that no one deemed the biblical books inspired, rather they were inspired inherently, and it was up to men to discover, more or less, which ones were. That was the purpose of the Council of Nicea and, as an earlier poser stated, the participants in that council took their job very seriously.

reply to post by karl 12
 

Look at the schools that those quotes come from. Naturally they're not going to be inclined to find support for biblical things because none of them really suppport Christianity and they go into studying biblical things with the presupposition that it's all fake and they have to prove that it is. It, naturally being the Bible/Christianity.

Also, while it is true that some believe that Mark was the first Gospel written, there are other scholars who don't believe that. There are plenty who believe that Matthew was written first and that it was translated into Greek from Aramaic.

I chuckle at the notion that some of these scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas dates to the start of the Christian era.




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by waynedg
 



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.

When that book, such as the Gospel of Thomas, goes completely against the other gospels, it's pretty safe to say that it's a lie written to push an agenda. In Thomas' case, the Gnostic one. It is well known that in the ancient times, books were written in the names of prominent Apostles, which would make it a forgery. [In fact, this is one of the reasons that makes me trust the Gospel of Matthew--what an obscure and "irrelevant" person to try to be! And, on the flip, make me not trust Thomas--everyone knew him and this message goes contrary to what we have.]


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.

You can go to your local Books-A-Million and pick up a copy of Thomas and the other Gnostic Gospels. No one is keeping it hidden. The same is true with the Dead Sea Scrolls. What they contain has been out in the open for quite a while. No one is trying to hide any truth from you, as far as Christianity goes.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by waynedg
 



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.

When that book, such as the Gospel of Thomas, goes completely against the other gospels, it's pretty safe to say that it's a lie written to push an agenda. In Thomas' case, the Gnostic one. It is well known that in the ancient times, books were written in the names of prominent Apostles, which would make it a forgery. [In fact, this is one of the reasons that makes me trust the Gospel of Matthew--what an obscure and "irrelevant" person to try to be! And, on the flip, make me not trust Thomas--everyone knew him and this message goes contrary to what we have.]


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.

You can go to your local Books-A-Million and pick up a copy of Thomas and the other Gnostic Gospels. No one is keeping it hidden. The same is true with the Dead Sea Scrolls. What they contain has been out in the open for quite a while. No one is trying to hide any truth from you, as far as Christianity goes.


why has the vatican library got more books then are in the bible. where and when and who gave them the power to censor what was written in the bible. we all know that the bible was written by man which obviously leads to some sort of agenda.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
well jesus did come to live as a human among us,and jesus also sinned as man sins,he had to,to take the burden of sin upon him.It is not to far fetched to see him as a child,as all children,michivious,and doing bad things.I see kids accidently playign with guns shooting each other all the time,imigine if ur words did kill.Also these sins he commited mostlikly reinforced his later feelinfs of saveing hummanity,to pay for his sins,as well as all sins of man.
Long story short, he lived as we do,then our father made him more.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
If he killed or not is kind of a mute point, he hung around with fishermen, do you eat fish alive or dead?

The bit that bakes my noodle is thus, if Christ could turn water into wine, does that mean the anti-christ will come along and turn your blood into water?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by waynedg
 


No one has censored the Bible. Certain books weren't included for various reasons: they contradict themselves, the Jews didn't recognize it as part of their canon, they contradiction the rest of Scripture among others.

I don't know what you mean by library. If you're talking about the Catholic Bible, their Bible has a few more books because, at the council of Trent, the Roman Catholic pope at that time said that the Jewish Apocrypha should be elevated to the status of divine Scripture--something that Protestants, naturally, don't recongnize--mainly because the Jews didn't recognize these books as Scriputure and they contradict other parts of the Bible. If you mean library as in, library, what's wrong with having books? My collge had a library and it contained books that the school didn't necessarily agree with. That's not a bad thing.


where and when and who gave them the power to censor what was written in the bible.

It is part of Catholic Theology that says the pope has the power to make decisions on these matters. But again, nothing was censored. Simply because a book isn't recognized as authoritatative doesn't mean that it's being censored.


we all know that the bible was written by man which obviously leads to some sort of agenda

Yes, the books in the Bible were physically written by man, but the authors were moved by the Spirit of God to write what they wrote. The biblical texts are inspired, or, God-breathed, as the Apostle Paul put it. The only agenda that the biblical authors had was to get the word out about the God of Israel and what God did through the work of Jesus Christ.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by starapple
 



The bit that bakes my noodle is thus, if Christ could turn water into wine, does that mean the anti-christ will come along and turn your blood into water?


That's pretty witty, I'm not gonna lie! While, I'm not sure that the Antichrist will do that particular sign, he will do some stuff once he is around.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
Look at the schools that those quotes come from. Naturally they're not going to be inclined to find support for biblical things because none of them really suppport Christianity and they go into studying biblical things with the presupposition that it's all fake and they have to prove that it is.


You mean they are attempting to be objective?

If I wanted to enquire about gospel authenticity from an agenda driven and wholly bias theological viewpoint then I'd just go to a
television evangelist.

If I didn't then I could think of worse people to quote:


Elaine H. Pagels, The Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion Princeton University

Elizabeth Clark, John Carlisle Kilgo Professor of Religion and Director of the Graduate Program in Religion Duke University

L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

Paula Fredriksen, William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University

Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



If I wanted to enquire about gospel authenticity from an agenda driven and wholly bias theological viewpoint then I'd just go to a
television evangelist.


You missed what I was trying to say. Mainstream Academia does have a biased and driven theological viewpoint--that viewpoint being the Gospels aren't true [that being their presupposition] and then trying to back up what they've already presupposed.

If you really want to get into the truth of the Bible, don't rely on what people from Harvard or Liberty University have to say--study it yourself. Then you'll get the answers. If you don't want to take the time to look at Scripture soley on your own, read what both sides of the arguement have to say.

When someone only looks for people and statements that support their viewpoint, you're naturally going to find what you're looking for and not really learn anything.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by starapple
 



The bit that bakes my noodle is thus, if Christ could turn water into wine, does that mean the anti-christ will come along and turn your blood into water?


That's pretty witty, I'm not gonna lie! While, I'm not sure that the Antichrist will do that particular sign, he will do some stuff once he is around.


Who's to say he isnt here already, you can just simply call me "Helel Ben Shahar!"

Or as the muslims would no doubt say "Hilal Bin Jihad!"

'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.'

[edit on 30-4-2009 by starapple]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Jesus is Love. Jesus is gentle. Jesus is a Saviour.

Jesus does not kill, he saves.

A lot of the Bible is false because it has been mistranslated from and by people who understood different languages.

Also, do not trust anything that is written or passed down by man.

Jesus did not kill.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Maybe Jesus was Gay and a Hippy did you ever think of that?

He was against government taxation that was for certain;

Give unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers!


Christ was the voice of reason in a Dark time, that is to say he gave humanity hope.

But when you break it down how many times has god answered you aloud?

Face that off with how meny times you got down on your knees and prayed!



[edit on 30-4-2009 by starapple]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
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.



Phwoaar! You actually just made it sound 'appealing'! Might have to have a re-read with that in mind! Sounds deliciously salacious!



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was never accepted into the official cannon because it could not be authenticated. As I understand it, many people wrote the equivalent of soap operas, but focused on what they didn't know about the life of Jesus, and made up filler stories. The Infancy Gospel did not say that Jesus killed anyway, it says that the boy died the town blamed Jesus, and Jesus brought the boy back to life to verify His innocence. What I find interesting is that many of these stories had found their way, at least partially, into the Quran. Such as Jesus speaking at birth, turning clay birds into real birds, and others.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
Mainstream Academia does have a biased and driven theological viewpoint--that viewpoint being the Gospels aren't true [that being their presupposition] and then trying to back up what they've already presupposed.


If we're being honest about it - doesn't everybody have subjective, bias,agenda driven viewpoint - especialy those who pressuppose the bible is anything more than a book?

Isn't it all relative to each individual's opinion?

Perhaps the crux of the problem is that the bible is not recognised as a historical document and therefore all the accounts are regarded as
stories based on speculation,conjecture,rumour and heresay.

As I said in the opening post,if looked at objectively and free from emotive agenda theres still ongoing debate about the legitimacy of characteristics attributed to jesus or whether he actualy existed at all.

There is some interesting reading at the site below which covers some of these topics -I'm not saying they're right but I am suggesting you look
at them to cultivate an informed,balanced opinion.


MOST COMMON ERRORS

His Name Was Jesus Christ

Born on December 25th

Born in Bethlehem

Lived in Nazareth

Joseph was a Carpenter

Jesus was a Carpenter

Mary Was a Virgin

Jesus Was An Only Child

Jesus' Ministry was Only 1 to 3 Years

Jesus Had a Small Following

Jesus' Family Was Not Supportive

Jesus' Family Was Poor

Jesus Had Long Hair and a Beard

Jesus Wasn't Married

Jesus Was Nailed to the Cross

Jesus Was Severely Beaten

Jesus Died in 30 A.D.

Jesus Was About 30 Years Old When He Died

The Gospels Were Written in the 1st Century

Mary of Magdala

The Empty Tomb

The Star of Bethlehem

The Magi Visit Jesus

Prince of Peace

www.jesuspolice.com...

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



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Waw what a interesting thread , karl, thanks.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme

Originally posted by blupblup
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.



Phwoaar! You actually just made it sound 'appealing'! Might have to have a re-read with that in mind! Sounds deliciously salacious!





Hilarious mate.... i probably did make it sound like a rip-roaring read huh?

Enjoy it man....



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
It gets even more interresting when youu learn that this Annas is heavily involved in the punnishment of Jesus



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
What I always found interesting that Annas, father of the boy killed by Jesus as a child, shows up again in another text as the leader of the Temple elders who were responsible for getting Jesus tortured and crucified. A little payback, perhaps?


P.S. - I didn't see that above.


P.P.S. - The Gnostic gospels also hint at an interesting, possibly romantic and political triangle between Jesus, John the Baptist, and Salome.

Curious stories.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Nohup]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

P.P.S. - The Gnostic gospels also hint at an interesting, possibly romantic and political triangle between Jesus, John the Baptist, and Salome.

Curious stories.


Well, Salome was the midwife at the birth of Jesus. Salome was a follower of Jesus. Your idea about there being a romantic relation between John the Baptist and Jesus, well, I never heared or read that anywhere, but John the apostle credited for being the meditor of the Gospel of John, well he isn't refered to by name but is called the Beloved Disciple, or the disciple Jesus loved. This is why I believe that the Gospel of John should rather be the Gospel of Rosemary, the wife of Jesus, whom Jesus loved more than the other disciples according to gnostic texts and resulted in rivalry and discussions among Jesus' followers. Jesus is also critisised for kissing her often on the... with a word is missing, leaading some researchers to believe the missing word is mouth, but it could be hand or something else. Anyway it's a sign of affection, showing a side of Jesus which many refuse to even concider, calling it herecy and even satanic.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join