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.

 

The Son of Yahweh. Evidence Is Irrelevant.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Or, maybe I should say the lack of evidence is irrelevant. Either way the character of Jesus Christ (whom I am a great fan of) within the New Testament is 100% irrelevant.

Before some of the fundies get their panties in a twist let me be clear, I am a fan of the good side of Christrianity. I believe this religion as a whole has done more for people than all other religions combined. It inspires hope, and can truly change people from the inside. Some of the greatest heroes and just good general people have been Christian. It is also a story of the underdog, which is inspiring to many. So please do not take this as a "Christian bashing" thread. Though there certainly is a duality within religious dogma and history, but I am not going to go into that because it doesnt have much to do with the thread.

Now to my point. It is a simple one. One that doesnt take a scholarly background or an in depth understanding of the innerworking knowledge of real interpretation of the magnificent book we label "the Bible."

Lets start with facts .
1. Jesus Christ is (and if you believe still exists) was a Jew. There is debate as to how much of a "fundamental" Jew he was. But certainly we all can agree his heritage is Jewish as defined in the Bible.
2. Christians in general believe in the Trinity. Christians also believe in the Tanakh which includes the Torah.
3. The Torah never mentions a Trinity. It mentions a one and only God.
4. Jesus (according to popular belief) believed in this God. This Gods name is Yawheh in English.

Now for assumptions.
1. Christians, Jews and Muslims believe Yahweh exists in a literal interpretation that this God looks, interacts and reasons as a human would and does.
2. Jesus Christ existed as a Jew.
3. Christians believe Jesus Christ was born from a virgin divinely inseminated by the Holy Spirit. (the spirit form of Yawheh)
4. According to Christians Jesus Christ is and was the same as Yawheh but is considered the "Son of God." God being "Yawheh." (I know it is confusing, but that is the basic of the belief)

There are many, many, many more assumptions, but that is all we need to concentrate on for this particular argument.

Argument.
This is a dull argument to be honest, but one that is commonly overlooked and rarely considered. Other than written text (which can be mis-interpreted, maneuvered and corrupted) there is and has been zero, zilch, nada, and no evidence ever that a God of this nature exists. The only evidence that could ever be concocted is the ark of the covenant. It is nowhere to be found.

Conclusion.
Therefore it is 100% irrelevant when it comes to Jesus Christ existing as the Son of Yahweh.

In other words you can not bring the cart before the horse. To even begin to consider Jesus Christ as a God, you must first give evidence of Yahweh existing in the form of the typical fundamental version that most believe Yawheh to exist. If you can not provide any evidence that this form of God ever existed how and why could you even consider Jesus Christ to be the Son of a God that you have no evidence for?

This is my logic. You don't have to accept it




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 



3. The Torah never mentions a Trinity. It mentions a one and only God.

The Trinitarian view acknowledges that there is one God as well. the best way to put it into words is something like, "one in spirit, three in essence."

The New Testament doesn't directly mention a Trinity either. The doctrine is pieced together by verses in the Scripture.

Interestingly, the Old Testament does allude to a Trinity. One example is Genesis 1.27 when God uses the first person plural [we, our] when going to create man. Also, the Angel of the Lord, who is a distinct entity from YHWH is said to be God once [in Judges I believe] and he receives and accepts worship, which is something that is reserved for God alone. It's interesting to note that he accepted it. There are instances in Scripture where someone goes to worship angels and the angel stops them. The Angel of the Lord does no such thing. It is also interesting that, people saw the angel of the Lord and that he is later said to be God. This is interesting because God told Moses that if he was seen, people would die.

There are passages in the OT where the Spirit of God is given divine status as well.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


cool. great knowledge. thanks for the post. really good stuff. i love to learn nuences like that. if i had the time i would love to learn in depth what the bible has to really offer.

in fact, if io were to convert or become religious, it would be an easy choice for me. judaism and or islam seems to offer the most realistic approach to...God??


my point is more of an argument against fundamental christianity.

if you noticed, i never said there is no God. I am just pointing out that it is (in my opinion) irrelevant to believe in something that stems from something else before you have first given credence to that first something. and that first something needs to match the evidence given. (ie. the human traits that are mentioned for God to portray...like jealousy, love, hate and preference etc., etc.) i have a hard time seeing an all powerful god with such a personality



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
See that's the point though. If you want to see Him in a certain way it doesn't change the way He really is. I agree that you shouldn't need evidence to say that Jesus is the Son of God. On this site you need it though or you're deemed a loon.

Not that it matters if they do.

[edit on 5/26/2009 by watchtheashes]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 





...like jealousy, love, hate


If man was made in the likeness of God, then would God not have had these traits first?

It gives Him more personality and just makes it all the more real. If you truly believe in Yahweh and Yeshua then He will show you Him.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 
You beat me to it. There are several times in the Old Testament, especially in Genesis wher God is referred to in the plural "Elohim." Let us not for get the the passage in Genesis that states that the "Sons of God came down and looked upon the daughters of men and knew them." I'm not sure if that is an exact quote because I don't have my Bible handy. But these passages clearly support the possiblity of a Trinity.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 


The first passage is definitely right spot on. However the sons of God is referring to Satan's angels. That's a whole different thing.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


i think you may have mis understood my post. i personally do not believe in the literal evangelical and fundamnetal interpretation of Yahweh.

My point is that fundamental christians do. but there is no evidence for him. ever. so how can you believe in Yahweh with no evidence and then jump automatically to believeing in jesus christ as the son of god? i have no need or desire to call anyone a loon or anything of that nature for their beliefs, but in my opinion and my logic, evidence must be provided for this version (fundamental envangelicalism) of yahweh before the fundamnetal evangelical version of Jesus Christ cn be believed.

its like putting the horse before the cart, in my opinion.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
let me try to clarify my post.

many many threads on this site and the internet concentrate on trying to disprove or prove the existence of Jesus Christ.

My point is that it doesnt matter if jesus Christ existed in his human form the way the Bible portrays him. In my opinion there must be some sort of validation of Yahweh in the Torah first.

even if it was possible to prove that jesus Christ existed, that is not enough to prove his divinity and it definitely does not prove that yahweh (the way he is portrayed in the bible exists)

therefore in my opinion it is moot whether jesus Christ ever existed inthe first place..hence the "horse before the cart" analogy...you must first at least provide some sort of evidence that Yawheh exists in the form he is portrayed in the bible,.

An example of this sort of evidenc is a logical explanation or logical way he is to exist.

In my opinion there is none. But I am more than willing to listen to all arguments.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


They were/are not "Satan's Angels" at all, please get away from that idea once and for all.


In the MUCH older Sumerian legends, these beings(Nephilim) were also called Anunnaki, and was far from "Satanic", but simply a highly advanced race that came to Earth to mine minerals and Gold.

Also the same beings that is called Elohim, although many people believe all three titles and groups to be completely different beings.

In fact, much of the material that is found in the Bible, is taken from the Sumerian legends, that- as said- came first. Indeed, much material in the Bible are "it's own", but much of it, is, as said, taken.

The entity called God or Yehowah in the Bible, is based on the Sumerian Enlil, although it was his brother, Enki, that was actually the real Creator and "Engineer" of Man.

Here; A good clip regarding the topic of 'Elohim': www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
There was this jewish rabbi I heard once speaking about the so called virgin birth of Jesus and it being a "sign".

He told a story, I'll see if I can get it up.

There was this small town outside of chicago(the windy city). The town had a problem with the traffic signs. The wind kept blowing them over. This posed a bit of a health risk as the signs could fall over and could possibly land on or hit someone.

So the town had a meeting of it's citizens. They argued back and forth with different solutions, but none seemed to be the answer.

Finally a little old lady stands up in the back and says - I have the answer, listen to me if you want to keep the signs from falling over. And so everyone hushes up and listens.

The old lady says - Just bury the signs in the ground. Then the wind won't be able to blow them over. Everyone starts laughing. But the old lady was right, if the signs were buried then they wouldn't get blown over.

So what is the problem? Because it's not a sign if you can't see it. So how can a virgin birth be a sign from god if nobody can see it?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


There is ample evidence that God - as referred to in the old testament was referring to the power that resided inside the Ark of the Covenant - which was a power source, could be directed mentally to cut and lift stone, divert water courses and several other applications - it also allowed communication with certain aliens.

This power was also called the Tetragrammaton - this is the real 'god' of the Israelites, which was in fact an artifact stolen from the Egyptians by Moses.

Jesus seems to simply be a myth created aligned with the myth of Thoth the sun god, with whom Jesus shares a host of similarities - all based on astrological signatures. The myth was transposed by Constantine from the beliefs of the gnostics - whose roots lay in Egyptian astrology and science.

There was no Jesus, the Tetragrammaton was an alien artifact - that still exists today.

The aliens came here many thousands of years ago, more than 13,000 - genetically altered some existing primates into us (as per Genesis 1 to 6, and throughout Genesis) - we were created as a slave or servant race for them. However, some of them began interbreeding with humans, this advanced our evolution - but also began to make the higher up aliens feel that we could no longer be considered a servant race, as we shared a genetic code with them and should be left alone to evolve in relative freedom. Some began to understand the technology of the alien masters, Eve for instance - and they were sent away.

The 'most high' - the alien boss in this area decreed that the people of earth should be left alone. Some of those aliens who lived here didn't like to be ordered around like that, they liked having us as slaves. The boss then said - get off the planet - we are going to destroy the advanced civilization you have built by flooding it. if you don't leave - you are going to die.

Some refused and tried to outwit the boss, but he sent some powerful agents (Michael and Gabriel as per Enoch) to kill the ringleaders of this rebellion - the earth was then flooded, and the alien artifacts were removed. Except for perhaps one or two of the power supplies - one of which was kept in Egypt - later stolen by Moses and stored in the Ark of the Covenant.

It seems maybe some of the aliens or hybrids hid under ground - and may still be hanging around today.

Thats essentially the story that comes from the bible - thats the incredibly short version without any references etc.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightchild
 


Exactly that means they were fallen. Their perfect trick is deception. That would be one of those deceptions. The only reason those tablets are older is because they were not given to Moses directly. The Torah was given to Moses directly from the Elohim. Not they but He. Yahweh created them long before humans so who is to say they were not deceiving them too? After all look at the Book of Enoch.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 


I believe as you do that Elohim is a way that, in the Old Testament, we can see hints of a Trinity. There are some though that say that the use of Elohim simply was a Hebrew way of expressing the majesty of God. That is mainly the reason that I didn't mention it. Thanks for bringing it up though!



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



So what is the problem? Because it's not a sign if you can't see it. So how can a virgin birth be a sign from god if nobody can see it?


People could've seen if Mary was a virgin. If the hymen membrane is still there, and yet she's pregnant, something was up.

From the actions of Joseph, one can see that something was different about Mary's pregnancy--he didn't "turn here in". He wanted to divorce her quietly. Had she not been a virgin, Joseph would've had every right to turn her in, get his bride price back, and have her stoned.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
Other than written text (which can be mis-interpreted, maneuvered and corrupted) there is and has been zero, zilch, nada, and no evidence ever that a God of this nature exists. The only evidence that could ever be concocted is the ark of the covenant. It is nowhere to be found.


i disagree.

there is secular evidence that the israelites where in bondage to the egyptians.

how did this defenseless pitiful (in a military sense) nation gain it freedom from egypt?

most scholars scoff and say that the plagues were series of natural events. but the happen to coincide with israel's exodus?

israel's laws showed an understanding of medical treatment that wouldne be discovered for thousands of years. certain things like contamination and burying waste away from the camp.

israel's release from bondage was prophesied some 130 years before their 70 years of bondage even started. the prophecy even named precisely the man who was going to do it.

daniel prophesied the exact year jesus would show up.

jesus prophesied the exact nature of the fall of jerusalem.

there is strong evidence that god was involved in these events



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by octotom
 
You beat me to it. There are several times in the Old Testament, especially in Genesis wher God is referred to in the plural "Elohim." Let us not for get the the passage in Genesis that states that the "Sons of God came down and looked upon the daughters of men and knew them." I'm not sure if that is an exact quote because I don't have my Bible handy. But these passages clearly support the possiblity of a Trinity.


A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith

:"The fanciful idea that [´elo·him'] referred to the trinity of persons in the God. hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."


The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures says of ´elo·him':

"It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute."

To illustrate this, the title ´elo·him' appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1-2:4) Thus, that publication concludes:

"[´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty."


"´Elo·him' means, not "persons," but "gods." So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of more than one God. Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity. But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods.

The Bible also uses the words ´elo·him' and ´elo·heh' when referring to a number of false idol gods. (Exodus 12:12; 20:23) But at other times it may refer to just a single false god, as when the Philistines referred to "Dagon their god [´elo·heh']." (Judges 16:23, 24) Baal is called "a god [´elo·him']." (1 Kings 18:27) In addition, the term is used for humans. (Psalm 82:1, 6) Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" [´elo·him'] to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Exodus 4:16; 7:1."



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
People could've seen if Mary was a virgin. If the hymen membrane is still there, and yet she's pregnant, something was up.

From the actions of Joseph, one can see that something was different about Mary's pregnancy--he didn't "turn here in". He wanted to divorce her quietly. Had she not been a virgin, Joseph would've had every right to turn her in, get his bride price back, and have her stoned.


Ok, but who is going to go around inspecting women at that time for such things? It's not like people were going around.

In the example the rabbi gave, if the sign is buried in the ground, it still exists. But it's just not serving the purpose of a sign if nobody can see it.

Also, they are married but she is a virgin? I didn't realize they were already married. If that is true, then it makes the story even more unbelievable.

As well, it was pointed out that the writers of the bible were trying to fit in the story of the prophecy from the OT. And I guess the original word they were using was said that he would be born of a young woman, not a virgin. And that the virgin birth was based on them not understanding. And I would have to agree with that. Not based on the OT, but based on my understanding.

I do not think Mary was the virgin. Born of a young woman, that I can see. If you take a look you will see that Jesus talks of 2 births.



John 3

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


So, the way I see it is this. His flesh is born of Mary and Joseph. His spirit is born of the father. The father is the virgin because there is no equal to him. All that is born of the spirit is born of the father. Thus when Jesus is born "of the virgin", it is reference not to the physical, but in reference to his spirit.

2 births.

He denies Mary is his mother at one point even, and says only 1 is his father. 1 parent = virgin.

Just makes much more sense to me in this way, and I think people often forget the 2 births. That 2nd birth Jesus had obviously already went through.

Do you disagree that the birth of spirit is from a virgin(god)?




[edit on 26-5-2009 by badmedia]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



Also, they are married but she is a virgin? I didn't realize they were already married. If that is true, then it makes the story even more unbelievable.

No, they weren't married yet. Joseph and Mary would've been in the bethrohal stage. They weren't allowed to have sex yet though--but Mary would've been considered his wife.

In Hebrew, the word in Isaiah can refer to either a virgin or a young woman. When you look at the Septuagint, it can be seen how the Jews interpreted it. The Greek word that's used is the one the corresponds to a sexual virgin.


Just makes much more sense to me in this way, and I think people often forget the 2 births. That 2nd birth Jesus had obviously already went through.

There two births that Jesus talks about are the physical birth that all go through and then the spiritual "rebirth" that occurs when one accepts Christ and is indwelled by the Spirit.

I know you don't like Paul, badmedia, but he hits on this when he says that in Christ we're new creatures.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


I suppose that makes a bit more since as far as the wife part goes. As I said I hadn't heard they were married before.

The rabbi said what you mentioned about the words, I couldn't remember exactly what it was. But while the Greek version was specific, the Hebrew version it was based on and trying to fulfill, which was wrongly translated as virgin rather than young mother.

I'm speaking from what I've read/heard in this case, not based on my experiences and understanding here, so if there is evidence to the contrary I welcome it. But when I ask a jewish person, they tell me young woman. When I ask a christian, they tell me virgin. And the young woman part happens to be in line with my own understandings, more than the virgin part.

But it still doesn't make it a sign as claimed. Anyone could see she was a young woman. I know it's been 2000 years, but I would have to imagine it wasn't proper in those days to ask her if you can check and make sure she was a virgin. So I just don't see how it could qualify as a sign from god.

I am speaking out of my own experience in regards to the 2nd birth and the father being a virgin. Which didn't include any of these labels such as Christ and so forth at all. I only know the father, and that is what I recognize in the words of Jesus. I do not know Jesus, outside the father within him. And I know my father is a virgin, but my flesh parents certainly aren't.

It seems that it's just a way of separating Jesus from the public. To make it as if it is impossible to be like him and so forth. And this again I know from my own experience is just simply not the case. If that is due to misunderstanding, or done for manipulation I do not know. But I know everything Jesus says of himself is true of all those who seek and realize it. And we are all not born of a flesh virgin.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join